Va gets $8.6M in clean cities grants

Associated Press - August 26, 2009 3:55 PM ET

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy is getting $8.6 million in federal grants as part of a project to encourage people to switch from gasoline to propane.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the Clean Cities grant funding on Wednesday.

Clean Cities is a government-industry partnership that works to reduce America's petroleum consumption in the transportation sector.

The Virginia department received the funding for its Paving the Way with Propane: The AutoGas Corridor Development Program.

The initiative includes 17 new propane fueling stations along high traffic roadways from Washington, D.C. to Florida to Mississippi to create the nation's first propane corridor. The Department of Energy estimates that the initiative will help displace 3.9 million gallons of petroleum annually.

http://www.wric.com/global/story.asp?s=10994925

Many alternatives to nuclear energy, says critic

Comment: Great Article! The State of Virginia leaders should read the article. The state of Virginia has been brainwashed by the nuke bunch from Canada and France that Virginia needs nuke power and Virginia should blow up her hills to remove the uranium! The state of Virginia is being lead down the nuke path by the ring in her nose because France and Canada wants the money to carry home and pass around to their cronies! The state of Virginia needs to kick the nuke people to the curb and take care of her people first! Demand our Virginia leaders to ban uranium mining and milling now!


CRYSTAL RHYNO – Herald-Tribune staff

Nuclear power critic Dr. Gordon Edwards chose not to speak about the advantages of nuclear power because he assumed most people have heard them.

At the Grande Prairie Regional College last evening, Edwards spoke for nearly three hours on the topic of Nuclear in Alberta: Unanswered Questions.

“People are finding it difficult to get objective information, that is to hear both sides of the story,” said Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility with 30 years of nuclear power consulting under his belt.

Edwards delivered a lengthy and wide-spanning power-point presentation on everything from the historical use of nuclear reactions, the Chernobyl disaster, insurance policies in the event of a nuclear disaster, to the health effects of radiation.

“This is too important an issue to allow the government of Alberta to take a snap decision on,” said Edwards.

Edwards referred to various wind projects in places like Germany, and urged governments to always consider putting alternatives on the table when discussing nuclear power.

If you build a windfarm and you decide 10 years later you don’t like it, you can just take it down and forget it,” he said, arguing there are many alternatives to nuclear energy.

“You can’t do that with a nuclear plant. Once you decide to go that route, it’s a permanent decision. You can’t turn around again.” Edwards urged communities to let government know they should do what they can to slow down their decision-making and to look to alternatives when it comes to energy.

“And to think long and hard before going down that route,” said Edwards. “What’s the rush?”

Additionally, Edwards pointed out, the Alberta government should seriously consider creating an expert panel on alternatives and energy efficiencies.

“Because otherwise it’s sort of like going into a store and not even looking around, not looking to see what other merchandise is on sale,” he said. “That’s really an important thing.”

Close to 80 people took in the presentation, including members of the local activist group Stop Poisoning Our Communities (SPOC) and the Coalition for a Nuclear- Free Alberta, which sponsored the evening.

Mark Townsend, who works in the forestry division of Alberta Sustainable Development, listened to the presentation to get a better feel of the argument against nuclear power.

“For a while I have been of the opinion nuclear power would be an interim step to reduce the carbon emissions in the atmosphere until we come up with some technologies to deal with the waste,” said Townsend. “But now hearing his argument, I am not wholly convinced nuclear power is a viable solution.”

Townsend had some questions in mind about costs associated with nuclear waste. He felt Edwards answered his general concerns.

“A lot of those costs aren’t answered now in terms of what are we going to do with the waste in the long term,” said Townsend.

After listening to the presentation, Townsend said he is swaying to the side against nuclear power.

“It would be interesting for Bruce Power (planning a nuclear power plant in the Peace River area) to come in and give their presentation,” said Townsend. “Then you could have both sides and people could make up their minds.”

To learn more about the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, visit www.ccnr.org.

http://dailyheraldtribune.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1710854

Green: the new 'hip' roof

The carport of a Cambridge, Mass., home is topped with a LiveRoof.

Sunday, August 9, 2009 3:33 AM
By Jill Laster
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Green roofs use plantings on top of water-resistant membranes to lower energy costs, deflect heat, extend the life of the roof, reduce storm-water runoff and absorb noise.

Demand for the roofs is growing across the United States. More than 3.1 million square feet of green roofing was installed during 2008 in the United States, a 35 percent increase from 2007, according to Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, an industry association. Although green roofs are most common on businesses, homeowners are starting to take notice.

In central Ohio, several companies are selling green roofs, including LiveRoof, GreenGrid and Green Roof Blocks. No local homeowner has installed a living roof yet, but they say they have had an increase in callers both in central Ohio and nationwide.

"I think it's part of an increased awareness of our impact on the planet," said Kelly Luckett, president of Green Roof Blocks of Florissant, Mo. "Green roofs are just a small part of that.

Aesthetics play a role as well. Jeff Salisbury and Christine Plepys of Newport, Ky., added a green roof to their new garage three years ago because they wanted something pleasant to look at from their porch.

"The first summer, before we put (the green roof) on, we could see the heat rising off the roof," said Salisbury, 43, who purchased the roof from Green Roof Blocks. "Now, you can see the plants up there, insects and bees collecting pollen, and birds. It's really nice."

Central Ohio's first LiveRoof-topped home made its debut last month at the Parade of Homes in Dublin. Builder Kevin Knight said the roof has piqued the interest of buyers, with several in talks to order one.

"All clients, all people, want something different," Knight said. "This is different. It's been a little bit of an experiment, but it's been good."

Like all roofing systems, green roofs consist of different layers to protect the home. Although those layers differ from system to system, green roofs use a waterproofing layer, a drainage system, a growing medium and plants.

Two main types of green roofs exist: extensive and intensive. Extensive green roofs are less than 6 inches deep, making them lighter, less expensive and lower maintenance; the plants typically include flowering herbs and certain grasses and mosses. Intensive green roofs are deeper and more expensive but have more plant options.

The time required to install a green roof differs by company and by the size of the roof, but typically it takes less than a day. Some companies install already-grown plants.

A green roof could potentially more than double the cost of a traditional roof, bringing it up to $15 or more a square foot.

Owners might also have to pay to reinforce their buildings to carry the additional weight, which can be 15 to 50 pounds a square foot. Although some commercial structures are built to hold extra weight, almost no homes are; an architect must assess whether a home can be retrofitted.

But green-roof sellers say that the expense is recouped in the long run. LiveRoof says its product can reduce indoor temperatures 6 to 8 degrees during warm or hot weather and reduce air-conditioning costs 25 percent to 50 percent in single-story buildings.

A properly maintained green roof is expected to last 40 years or more, although green roofs have not been popular in the United States long enough to track their durability. In countries such as Germany and Finland, green roofs have been in use for more than 75 years, with examples still intact.

"It's something that pays for itself and pays for itself over a long period of time," said Nick McCullough, co-owner of McCullough's Landscape and Nursery in New Albany, a LiveRoof installer.

Maintenance on a green roof includes the traditional elements of a roof checkup, such as regularly inspecting for damage.

Green-roof owners will also need to do the sort of maintenance required of a lawn: trimming as needed with a weed whip or lawn mower and watering during drought. Kentucky homeowner Salisbury said that for the first six weeks, their 340-square-foot garage roof required watering every few days. Now, the couple waters the roof only during long periods without rain. They weed it about twice a year.

Because it is a garage, Salisbury and his wife have not noticed any savings in home energy costs. Their biggest concern when they purchased the roof was an attractive space.

"I think people really enjoy it as opposed to having an asphalt-shingle roof," he said. "It gives them something nice to look out on."

When a home or business owner wants a green roof, he or she should consider factors such as roof accessibility and aesthetics, said Steven Peck, president of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. Typically, a green roof must have a slope of no more than 15 to 20 degrees, although green roofs have been built at steeper angles.

Linda Craig and her husband, Jim, wanted to add something special to the garage roof of their Kirkwood, Mo., home. They decided to add 250 square feet of Green Roof Blocks around the edge of the roof.

Although they haven't seen any energy savings, Craig said she and her husband have enjoyed the addition. After installing the roof last year, the Craigs watered it for the first few months but haven't needed to since. They've also had to weed the roof two or three times.

"It takes care of itself," Craig said. "It's really no maintenance at all.

"We've been really happy that we did it."

jlaster@dispatch.com

"I think people really enjoy it. . . . It gives them something nice to look out on."

Jeff Salisbury
green roof owner

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/home_garden/stories/2009/08/09/LIVE_ROOF.ART_ART_08-09-09_H1_RFEM5K5.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

Renewable Energy Can't be an Afterthought in the Quest to Meet Climate Goals

Comment: Green energy can replace coal and nuke power if people cut back their usage of power or supply their own power with solar or wind powers, etc! Uranium and oil will run out, reprocessing spent rods from nuke power plants is costly and other countries are not successful with the process! The cost of building the 100-nuke plants that certain people want will not have enough uranium to run the plants! No To Uranium Mining and Milling!

Wed Aug 5, 2009 5:01pm EDT
By Triple Pundit - Triple Pundit
By Jeff Siegel

A new report from the Electric Power Research Institute noted that in order to meet climate goals, the U.S. power industry must implement a full portfolio of technologies.

While we agree that we'll have to pull out all the stops in the race to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must not trade one problem for another.
Comment: Green energy can replace coal and nuke power if people cut back their usage of power or supply their own power with solar or wind powers, etc! Uranium and oil will run out, reprocessing spent rods from nuke power plants is costly and other countries are not successful with the process! The cost of building the 100-nuke plants that certain people want will not have uranium to run the plants! No To Uranium Mining and Milling!

In the EPRI report, an awful lot of attention was focused on cleaner coal technology and more nuclear development. Certainly this is one way to decrease CO2 emissions - but it's also a way to further liquidate our natural capital. Things like healthy soil, clean water, minerals, clean air, and living systems.

Now understand, I'm not saying we shut down all of our coal-fired and nuclear power plants. But going forward, it does not make economic or environmental sense (both are connected, by the way), to short-change the potential of renewables. In other words, instead of trying to figure out how to capture carbon from coal-fired power plants or find the massive amounts of capital to build new nuclear power plants while still having absolutely no safe place to store all the waste, we should be focusing on utilizing our robust renewable resources - which are clean, free and abundant.

Listen: The DOE has already stated that wind could produce 20 percent of the nation's total electricity needs by 2030. A recent report released by McKinsey & Company showed that by 2020, the U.S. could reduce its energy consumption by 23 percent, simply by deploying an array of efficiency measures. And the USGS has estimated that the United States has enough megawatt-hours of geothermal resources to satisfy 10 percent of U.S. demand - using current, off-the-shelf technologies.

So there's 53 percent of our power - using only wind, energy efficiency and geothermal. And that's based on today's technology. And no coal or uranium has to be mined for fuel, there's no need to build another $96.2 billion repository to store radioactive waste, and these solutions are not carbon-intensive.

Now I realize there are some folks here that are stewing right now, getting ready to draft their "solar and wind don't run all the time" arguments. But that argument is losing steam, as pretty much everyone by now should be familiar with the fact that we are not relying solely on wind or solar. We are relying on everything, utilizing all of our options - including renewables, smart grid development, infrastructure upgrades and energy conservation and efficiency measures. Combined, these solutions can allow us to meet a huge chunk of our energy demand - without liquidating large amounts of natural capital.

In fact, Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, recently said that if we can shape our renewables, we don't even need fossil fuel or nuclear plants to run all the time.

He also noted that most plants running all the time in the system are an impediment because they're very inflexible, saying, "You can ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant. And if you have instead the ability to ramp up or ramp down loads in ways that can shape the entire system, then the old concept of baseload becomes an anachronism."

Now I know some may not agree with the chairman, but his argument is not without merit. And either way, integrating renewables on a large scale is no longer about "Can this be done?"

It's about doing what we already know can be done - and must be done if we plan to leave future generations cleaner, safer power generation that will not be held hostage by fossil fuel depletion or heavy natural capital costs.

Reprinted with permission from TriplePundit

http://www.reuters.com/article/mnEnergy/idUS355955617020090805

Off-grid subdivision in works in Maine

This Homestead House is designed to function off of the standard utility grid. It would be able to generate its own electricity with photovoltaic cells and with a small vertical axis wind turbine. The structure would be passively solar heated and cooled and the domestic water would also be heated by the sun. Rainwater would be collected off of some of the roof arches and directed to above or below ground storage containers. Many other alternative energy gathering and storage systems can be employed, including the possible use of solar and wind powered hydrogen manufacturing, for use throughout the house.

Posted by Steve Marshall at 03:53 PM/ET, August 03, 2009

Our colleague, Blair Brettschneider, writes about a massage therapist-turned-builder working to develop Maine's first off-the-grid subdivision, the Portland Press Herald reported.

Jason Peacock, of Portland, is trying to create his dream project, called the "Solar Village," on 34 forested acres north of Wiscasset.

Peacock's vision includes about a dozen tightly built homes with high-efficiency lights and appliances that run mostly from solar power, the newspaper reported.

Peacock recently showed the progress of his 1,000-square-foot model home that he hopes will one day be part of the subdivision.

The house has an insulated concrete floor, sprayed foam insulation in the walls and ceiling, a metal roof and siding made of fiber-cement and recycled lumber, the Press Herald said.

Peacock is accredited at the highest levels of healthy, energy-efficient construction by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. He runs the company "Platinum Green Inc." with his wife.

Peacock is largely financing and building Solar Village himself and has met some challenges as buyers pulled out due to the economy. After things pick up, Peacock said he would eventually like to move his family to the Solar Village.

"I want to bridge the gap between the hippie generation of the 1960s and modern technology," Peacock told the Press Herald.

Here is a link of an example of plans for house off the grid:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/08/offgrid-subdivision-in-works-in-maine.html?csp=34

Virginia’s AES plans Indiana wind farm

Comment: We do not want Nuke Power, therefore, no uranium mining! We want true green energy, true renewable energy, we must share our green power, something maybe Utilities company do not want to do, they just want Nuke, or Coal Plants so they can make money off their consumers because the government (taxpayers) gives this bunch subsides!

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 5, 2009

INDIANAPOLIS -- The parent company of Indianapolis Power & Light Co. is planning a wind farm with 200 or more towers that could become Indiana's largest generator of the alternative energy.

AES Corp. plans to build the wind turbines in a 75,000-acre area along the Clinton-Tipton county line north of Indianapolis, The Indianapolis Star reported yesterday. The project would cost up to $1 billion and mark central Indiana's entry into the growing market.

Paul Burdick, a vice president of Arlington County-based AES, said the company hopes the wind farm will produce 400 megawatts of electricity, or roughly the output of a midsize coal-burning power plant and enough to power about 400,000 homes.

Turbines could start going up next year, Burdick said.

Clinton County farmer David Ristow said several European companies also approached him about leasing land for a wind farm, but AES offered the best deal.

Landowners also liked the fact AES is a U.S. company, has ample resources to complete the project, owns the power utility serving Indianapolis, and wants to take on the entire wind-farm project by itself, Ristow said.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/WIND05_20090704-211402/278070/

Now is the time to explore alternatives to nuclear power

Comment: We do not need Nuke Power, it is too expensive, dangerous and not carbon free because of construction, uranium mining and milling! Nuke plants pollutants the water, air and land. Nuke Plants causes cancers in plant workers and people living around plant! Nuke plants kills fish and makes the water too warm! We want true green power!

Sun Media columnist Lorrie Goldstein makes some accurate statements in his June 30 editorial "Smitherman rolls dice on new reactor deal."

His ultimate assumption that without nuclear energy Ontario risks power shortages is, however, utterly false.

Certainly, if we do nothing at all, eventually shortages will occur. But, there is a vast number of tested alternatives available right now that will secure Ontario's electrical supply for less money, safer, cleaner and with better reliability. I'll outline some of these shortly.

Even before the current recession reared its ugly head, Ontario was in a position of having surplus electrical power.

The recession increased that surplus and will certainly prolong if for years to come as our economy struggles back toward equilibrium.

There is no need for this province to feel pressured to rush headlong into signing a prohibitively costly agreement for nuclear energy - now, or ever.

Goldstein talks as if the only option is to grab the nuclear ring now -- whatever the cost. This foolhardy move will bridle Ontario residents -- perhaps all federal taxpayers, with a debt load of $30 to $50 billion dollars at the same time this province is facing one of the most severe recessions in its history. This huge debt is equal to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's proposed federal debt for all of Canada. Ontario doesn't need nuclear and can't afford nuclear.

The history of nuclear energy and CANDU reactors indicates that we can expect them to require further major refitting -- probably at similar costs to the purchase price -- every 20 years. I'm aware that the nuclear industry claims reactors have a life span of 40 years, but facts from our history reveal otherwise. CANDU, a heavy water reactor, produces about 100 times the water soluble tritium that is produced in European reactors. Google "tritium" and CANDU to see the concerns.

Goldstein reminds us that Darlington ended up costing 576% above original proposals. Nuclear cost overruns of double to triple the original figure quoted are common in Ontario's history.

There are less expensive alternatives with safe, clean, renewable energy. Conservation of energy is, of course, an important beginning.

Wind power is being used with great success in European countries.

The nuclear lobby tells us that the winds don't always blow. That's true. However, when the winds aren't blowing, we have the option of purchasing surplus hydro electricity from Quebec and Laborador. The peaks and valleys of output from these two systems complement one another.

Hot summer days when homeowners and businesses are running their air conditioners at maximum, place tremendous drain on our electrical generation system. Conveniently, they are also the times when solar electric production is at its highest. When our planned system of feeding back solar energy from homes and other sources into the electrical grid becomes widespread, this problem will resolve itself.

There are more methods of energy production available to us now than there have ever been in history. Due to world demand, research is focusing upon these areas. MIT is applying to patent a new, much more efficient type of solar panel that will be a vast improvement on existing systems, and less costly. Battery technology is infinitely beyond that which powered the successful EV cars of decades ago.

The world is aglow with ever better options. Canadians should be looking ahead at new but proven technologies, not back at the outdated nuclear technology of the 1950s.

The most effective thing the nuclear industry has going for it is a frighteningly powerful lobby group in Toronto and Ottawa.

Unclear about nuclear? We don't need it. We can't afford it.

It's not what we want to leave as a legacy for future generations.

http://www.orilliapacket.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1641608

Op-ed Series - Scott Sklar: What is all this "Green" stuff, and does it matter to me?

Comment: Everyone should reduce the amount of electricity we use every day, therefore, we will not have to hear the Power Companies crying for new Coal and Nuclear Plants! If you want, a big house and you can afford the McMansion put in solar and wind power! We all need to go off the grind! If we all go off the grind, No more Blowing up Mountains and open pit uranium mining or we will know the real facts about our government, they are just ruining our world for greed! Oh, by the way, Hang out the clothes and save a lot energy!

July 2, 12:02 PM · Matt Roberts - DC Green Business Examiner

Scott Sklar, President, The Stella Group, Ltd.This article is next in the continuing summer op-ed series which asks leaders in the renewable energy and sustainability industries to speak about where we are today, and where we will be going tomorrow.

By: Scott Sklar, President, The Stella Group, Ltd.

In August of 1993, without anyone’s knowledge, a tree limb fell in Ohio which knocked out the electric power in 12 States and parts of Canada. Electricity outages ranged from days to weeks for millions of people. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the southeast and knocked the electric grid and natural gas pipelines down in six states from Florida to Texas. Intense weather patterns tied to an aging electric and natural gas utility network and the result is outages, higher costs, and loss of reliability.

While American’s fixate on the upward and downward trends of gasoline, the same is true for natural gas. Uranium and coal costs have also increased significantly, and State electricity regulators have been slowly allowing electricity rates to reflect the ‘real’ price of fuels. Maryland and Virginia have seen electricity prices spiral upward and no one thinks it will abate. In fact, if the region’s electrical utilities have their way – upgrading transmission and distribution lines along with substations – and then adding new electric generation plants – whose billions of dollars of new costs will have to be embedded in the electric rates by all customers for decades to come.

Not only do we face increasing power costs for our homes and businesses but we must pay for the lack of reliability and electric power quality ourselves. According to an Environmental Defense Fund report, stationary diesel engines are used in many applications including: compressors, back-up electricity generators, and to power pumps. There are more than 900,000 of these engines in-use nationwide and at the same time, the exhaust they emit is among the most dangerous and pervasive sources of air pollution. The US market for UPS and other backup power systems has grown over seven percent annually through 2005 with a $6.5 billion US uninterruptible power supply industry in 2007 in the US alone.

I am here to tell you what you know already, and I will be willing to proclaim it on a stack of bibles – “electricity and natural gas costs will go up, not down, in your lifetime”.

Energy efficiency is the fastest, most cost-effective and quickest payback set of applications, you as a business owner or homeowner or renter, can do. For quality lighting, aside from compact flourescents, lighting timers, you can also move to LED lighting and solar light tubes and daylighting. Nearly a third of your energy is for lighting and it is the easiest to address. Make a visit to area specialty stores AmicusGreen in Kensington or EcoBeco in Silver Spring, or jump on the web to area vendors www.betterbulb.com or www.huvco.com or www.newtech.com.

Maybe you don’t know what to do, call in an energy audit for a low cost review. You can reach them at the stores above or contact TerraLogos in Maryland. They’ll also recommend water saving shower heads, programmable thermostats, and caulking.

Cut your energy loads and vampire losses – insulate your walls. your water heater tank and your attic. Replacement windows should be triple pane with lowE coatings and thermal barrier paints should be added in unimproved attics. Photovoltaic attic vent fans should be used in summer and ceiling fans in both summer and winter to improve comfort but seriously lower heating and cooling bills. Did you ever ponder that we heat the top third of the rooms in buildings while we spend most of our time in the bottom third? Ceiling fans at slow speeds drive the warmth downward in winter and at higher speeds move and cool the air in summer. Put chargers for power tools, cell phones, PDAs, toys, and appliances with remotes on power strips with switches. Vampire losses use ten percent of our nation’s electricity while drawing electric power for NO reason. So turn them off when you don’t need them – from the TV in your guest room to the chargers for your cell phone in the kitchen – they draw power when not in use.

And finally, reacquaint yourself with EnergyStar appliances – washers and dryers, refrigerators, and air-conditioners use mucho power. My new high efficiency washing machine not only uses 67% less electricity than a standard washer, but 40 percent of the water of a regular washer at its lowest setting. I save electricity and water – and here in Arlington County, that’s big money.

Once you’ve shrunk your energy appetite – you can think energy production. The easiest is solar water heating when your existing water heater dies. My solar water heater added $8 per month to my second mortgage and saved me $25 per month in energy costs, Now it’s paid for and I have a 15 year old daughter, so my savings have doubled !!! Contact the local Solar Energy Industries Association for referrals www.mdv-seia.org. Make sure you buy an SRCC-certified solar system. By the way, solar for pool heating is also cost-effective with an 18-month payback whether you use electricity, propane or natural gas for extending your swimming season.

For space heating and cooling I am a big fan of ductless heat pumps which not only use less energy to heat or cool, but being ductless lowers respitory diseases. I have the Sanyo system in my VA office building for the last 10 years. The most efficient way to heat and cool a building is ground-coupled heat pumps, also known as geoexchange or geothermal heat pumps. For new construction, a loop of water tubing circles the building or yard 10-feet underground. For existing buildings, small bore holes are drilled slanting down from 100 – 400 feet underground. The static underground temperature of 55 degrees requires so much less energy to heat or cool, you wonder why the US only has it in 900,000 buildings. Note the water never the leaves the tube and can be integrated into radiant floor systems or radiators. And the newer direct-exchange heat pumps use greenhouse gas friendly refrigerant in special air handlers on the walls, which is what I use in my home. There are three great GCHP companies that I have met in the Washington, DC region: SKS of Bethesda, Geothermal Options of Fairfax, and Harvey Hottel in Washington, DC., among others. Geothermal is cost effective, but be very selective of your drilling or ditching companies, which can the biggest cost of any geoexchange system. Get multiple bids from drillers and contractors and references – and call the references and possibly meet them in person.

Now for renewable energy electric systems, I wish to point out that I have photovoltaics on my DC and VA office buildings and also on my home. I have a small wind turbine on my VA office building with a smart, web-enabled batttery bank by GridPoint. My home photovoltaics (solar electric) system also has a larger battery bank and is web-enabled by Locus Energy. If you have a building off-the-grid, photovoltaics or small wind make sense. If you live in the Caribbean or have high electric rates for your business (expressed as demand charges, peak or seasonal charges, or ratchet rates), an appropriately-sized photovoltaics system can surely be cost-effective -- especially if you you do not need surge protection (for power sags, surges and transients) for digital equipment such as computers or back-up power UPS or generator systems. In fact, a small-wind or photovoltaics/battery system could be the most reliable, least expensive option for you now.

For most of us homeowners though, PV will cost more than standardized electricity from the electric grid. Now my $15,000 PV/battery home system (installed in 1985) now would be eligible for a 30% tax credit ($4,500) and the remainder on a 15 year second mortgage at 8.5% interest would cost my $98.47 per month, which due to the energy efficiency measures I described above, meets most of my electrical needs. So while a solar PV system is capital intensive, it does not have to be seen as a giant black hole. The electricity price does not increase, maintenance is minimal (especially if you web-enable), and of course you add no pollution or greenhouse gases to the planet.. If you are able to zone for small wind, wind energy is half the cost (if you have wind). My wind turbine spins reliably at night. Could it be the hot air generated on Capitol Hill? (there seems to be some disagreement by some of the experts on this issue). I have used almost every model by SW Windpower which has over 100,000 turbines worldwide including one at the base of the US Capitol at the US Botanic Gardens (www.wind-energy.com).

But the question I posited at the beginning is “Why does it matter?”

The extraction, conversion and use of energy is the single largest contributor to emissions causing changes in our global climate. And Boone Pikens is right, that importing energy (petroleum, natural gas and uranium) is causing the single largest transfer of wealth in history (and in many cases, from those who wish to harm us). Energy costs will rise, and energy efficiency and renewables are stable, reliable, long term investments. Emissions from energy not only emit greenhouse gases and level mountain tops and ruin streams and farmland, but emit regulated emissions (sulfur oxide, NOx and particulates) but also mercury and carcinogens.

Whether your concerns are national security, economic stability, environmental survivability or just good ole common sense – it’s time to put your money not only into being green, but in being smart.

For more info: You can leave your questions in the comment section, or forward them to me at DCGreenExaminer@gmail.com.
About the Author:
Scott Sklar is President for the last 10 years of The Stella Group, Ltd..a strategic marketing and policy firm for clean distributed energy users and companies, and Scott Sklar, the Group's founder and president, lives in a solar home in Arlington, Virginia and his coauthored book, A Consumer Guide to Solar Energy, was re-released for its third printing. Scott Sklar is Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves on the Boards of Directors of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, and the Renewable Energy Policy Project, and CoChairs the Policy Committee of the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, Sklar was also appointed in April 2007 onto National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy & Technology (NACEPT) of USEPA.
For 15 years he was simultaneously the Executive Director of the Solar Energy Industries Association and the National BioEnergy Industries Association. For two years prior, he was Political Director of the Solar Lobby formed by the national environmental groups, after 3 years at the National Center for Appropriate Technology as alternatively RD&D and Washington Directors. Scott served for nine years as an energy and military aide to Senator Jacob K Javits (NY) and was cofounder of the Congressional Solar Coalition - the group that drove the early 1970's legislation for renewables.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4230-DC-Green-Business-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Oped-Series--Scott-Sklar-What-is-all-this-Green-stuff-and-does-it-matter-to-me

Nuclear energy neither clean nor safe

Comment: People in Canada do not want uranium mining or nuclear power! Is that the reason for Canada to come south to take America's uranium? Canada, we are not welcoming your uranium mining, we do not want uranium mining in Virginia or anywhere else in America!

July 03, 2009
Re:Nuclear delay called risky,

July 1

Several assumptions need to be corrected. Canada's energy mix is 59.8 per cent hydro, 16.1 per cent coal, 11.6 per cent nuclear, 6.7 per cent oil, 4.9 per cent natural gas and 0.9 per cent renewables.

Hydro will continue to produce the same amount of electricity every year; however its proportion of the energy mix will decline due to net increases in demand. Wind generates power 30 per cent of the time, solar 20 per cent and other renewables 30 to 50 per cent.

Replacing all nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources with renewables by 2040 would result in this mix: 47.2 per cent hydro; 13.8 per cent wind; 7.2 per cent solar; 5.5 per cent tidal/wave; 23.1 per cent geothermal; 3.2 per cent other renewables, such as biomass and waste water.

This is a manageable expectation, especially in Ontario where we have made a commitment through the Green Energy Act. The GTA has made significant progress in both renewable sources of energy and energy conservation.

Renewable energy is clean, safe and cost effective. The same cannot be said about nuclear.

Uranium mining is not clean; the transport of radioactive materials is hazardous; waste management solutions do not ensure safety; and nuclear weapons proliferation is a serious threat.

Amy Collard, Natural Resources Critic, Green Party of Canada

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/660100

McCain Tries to Classify Nuclear Power as Renewable Energy; Voted Down

Comment: The south has lots of other things to offer for alternative energy, The South has sun, wind off the coast and mountains!! The southern coast has lots of wind but most Senators from the south has their heads in the Nuke Cycle, where they monies may come from!! Nuke Power is old, dirty, not clean because begins with uranium mining and milling which is not clean, green or carbon free. No to Nuke Power, No to Uranium mining & milling anywhere in the world!!

If you’ve wondered how life would be different if John McCain had won the 2008 presidential election, here’s one example of McCain supporting a policy that Barack Obama opposes.

At the urging of President Obama, members of the U.S. Senate are trying to craft a plan that would require utility companies to generate 15% of their power from renewable energy sources by 2021.

During debate this week over what a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) would encompass, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) tried to push through an amendment that would classify nuclear power as a renewable energy. “Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, have cleaner sources of energy and diversity: I certainly think nuclear power meets all of those definitions,” McCain told his colleagues, who rejected his proposal.

McCain isn’t the only senator trying to find a place for nuclear power in the current energy debate.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) claims excluding carbon-free nuclear power from the renewable standard penalizes states in the Southeast that have invested heavily in nuclear power plants. Unlike the Midwest, which can turn to wind, or the Southwest, which has lots of sun, the South does not possess the same abundance of a natural renewable source of energy.

But it does have the highest density of nuclear plants of anywhere in the country.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

href="http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/McCain_Tries_to_Classify_Nuclear_Power_as_Renewable_Energy__Voted_Down_90607

German City Emerges as a World Class Energy-Saver

Comment: State of Virginia, we need to go the true Green Way for energy, not the dirty coal, Nuke way, the old fashion ideas, get with the program!! No to Nuke Plants and uranium mining & milling!!

For Release Sunday, May 31, 2009

FREIBURG — Tucked into a sunny corner of southwestern Germany, this old university town was best known until the 1970s for its massive cathedral dome, its tie to the Black Forest, and its craft of intricately carved cuckoo clocks.

Who would have thought then that early 21st century Freiburg could claim to be a world-class eco-city, leading in solar and wind power, energy-conserving home construction, rain-water management, public transit and carless neighborhood development?

Blame, if you will, authorities of the regional (state) government of Baden-Wuerttenberg. In 1975 they announced they’d build a nuclear power plant near Freiburg. No choice, they decreed, the power was needed for growth, and nuclear power was the smart modern choice.

The government had failed to reckon with local opposition — not just university faculty and students, but denizens of all ages, as well as local farmers, residents of nearby small towns. They mobilized around the construction site, tore down perimeter fences, used church bells to warn when the police were coming.

Even after the plant was cancelled, they stuck together, agreeing it wasn’t enough to say what they opposed — they had to explore where they would get their future electricity, power, heat. Would it be solar, or wind, or geothermal? Could it happen with no nuclear power, with radically less oil and coal?


It was an open debate. Professors came to the town plaza to discuss arrays of energy strategies. Special research institutes were founded — among them an EcoInstitute to look into such issues as reduced household consumption through energy-efficient construction and appliances. Also founded in Freiburg: the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, now Europe’s largest solar research energy body with a 500-person staff.

A visitor is exposed to exciting solar razzle-dazzle in Freiburg today — some 1,000 solar panels on building rooftops and facades, 2,400 square meters of solar cells atop a city stadium, and a solar tower at the railway station, its mixture of glass and 240 embedded solar panels glistening in the sun.

It’s taking time for solar to satisfy more than a fraction of Freiburg’s city energy demands. But it keeps growing because of a crucial incentive — the legal right of homeowners and businesses to feed excess power back into the local power grid, at an attractive rate of return, on a multi-year basis.

Germany as a whole is following the Freiburg lead, investing billions in photovoltaic research to become one of the world leaders in solar panel production and installation.

“We do trips into the future,” says Juergen Hartwig, a founding partner of “Freiburg Futour” which explain’s Freiburg’s breakthroughs to visitors. Environmentalists like himself, he notes, are no longer scoffed at as impractical idealists who wear two sweaters in winter; today not only Germany’s “Greens” but the main political parties have come around to support solar and other energy alternatives, because they’re profitable, and because they provide the county with some 250,000 jobs.

Freiburg keeps expanding its energy saving alternatives. Town center is an expansive vehicle-free pedestrian zone, one of Germany’s first, with refreshing foot-wide fresh water canals running along the streets to provide natural cooling and add ambiance. There’s a robust, growing public transit system of electric trams and buses. The city’s advanced water systems include grassy swales to percolate rain water into the aquifer while sewage waste is collected in a biogas plant together with organic household waste for electric power generation.

But perhaps the biggest wonder is Freiburg’s Vauban district — site of post-World War II French military barracks that’s been transformed into the world’s model for a zero-street parking, totally eco-friendly neighborhood or suburb.

Solar power, streets downsized to accommodate people instead of cars, cycling paths, rain water management — Vauban has them all. Seventy percent of Vauban’s 5,000 residents don’t own an automobile at all; many sold a car to move into the neighborhood and now rely on a car-sharing scheme (like ZipCar in the United States) for excursions.

Vauban’s theme is walkability — not just auto-free walkways but a variety of stores a stroll from home. There’s a tram direct into the center of Freiburg. Residences consist of a series of handsome four-story buildings, attractively detailed with balconies — all designed to maximize energy efficiency. Free-standing homes, our American model of the four-walled house with yard around, simply aren’t permitted.

Could this be the model of future development in the United States and elsewhere? The break from our generally broad streets and minimum parking requirements is dramatic. Few American zoning laws would tolerate such a development. But the convenience, the freedom for children to wander about, the informal and livable atmosphere, provide high quality of life.

Combine that with world-standard energy efficiency — standards that may become mandatory in a post-oil, carbon-strained world — and the Vauban art of development may spread a lot more rapidly than anyone would now predict.

Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.

http://citiwire.net/post/973/

Renewable energy at home

Comment: People of Virginia, turn to True Green Power, Nuke Power is not green or an alternative energy, Uranium is not green or renewable!!! No Nuke Power, No Uranium Mining!

Radhika ReddyGo to Radhika's Home Page
Portland DIY Environmentalism Examiner
May 24, 2:57 PM

Earth wind and fire: the state of renewable energy and how to bring it home.

In case you haven’t heard, fossil fuels are dirty, dangerous, dwindling, and frankly, kind of uncool. Although the door to traditional carbon-based energy sources is far from closed, the door to green technologies has blown wide open in recent years. Seven percent of US power came from renewable sources in 2007—mainly biomass (biofuels) and hydroelectric. But solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy are moving up and shaking up the business-as-usual mind set of the energy sector. Here’s a peeping tom’s glance at the power and potential of naked energy.

Here Comes the Sun…

Solar energy has been in use since before the first sea creature sprouted legs and walked on land. Plants use the sun to turn carbon dioxide into food. Your grandparents probably used it turn wet clothes into dry ones. But beyond its conventional function as a direct heat and light source, the potential for solar energy is enormous. One hour of sunlight hitting the earth is commonly estimated to contain enough energy to meet global demand for an entire year.

As interest in alternative energy grows, so do methods for harnessing and delivering it. Once thought too expensive to be practical, solar energy gets cheaper with each passing year of technology development. McKinsey & Company, an international management consulting firm dealing in energy, projects the unsubsidized cost of solar energy is a scant three to seven years away from “grid parity”—that is to rival the affordability of traditional energy sources.

Sunlight is energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Much like a beach can be broken down into individual particles of sand, the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation is the photon. A photovoltaic (PV) cell, or solar cell, is a sheet of light-absorbing material which converts photons into electricity through a process called the photovoltaic effect. When photons from sunlight are absorbed into a solar cell, they displace a stream of electrons and generate direct current (DC) electricity which can be stored or funneled into the power grid.

Although the first solar cell was created in the late 1800s from selenium and gold, it was the accidental discovery of silicon’s light absorbing properties in the 1950s which inspired solar power technology as we know it. Solar cell efficiency is determined by its ability to collect photons and by how much electricity can be harnessed from each of those photons. Science fictionesque inventions, ranging from solar cell balloons to grids of solar panels in space which beam energy back to earth in the form of microwaves, are promising but years away from making a practical contribution to the grid.
More immediate technologies, such as higher efficiency light absorbing materials, cells which adjust their position according to the changing angle of the sun, and sun concentrating cell designs, are bringing costs down. Despite these advancements, the US Department of Energy (DOE) reports that photovoltaic power plants made up less than one percent of renewable contributions to the total energy supply in 2007.

While its commercial impact has been modest, solar energy has great potential for a motivated consumer. Solar powered calculators or solar kits to charge cell phones, MP3 players, and other portable devices already enjoy widespread use. On a grander scale, hardwiring a new home with a 2.5 kilowatt solar power system would add $13,000 to $15,000 to the cost of a California home, according to online technology forum, cnet.com. This translates to $105 per month on a 30-year mortgage at 6.75 percent and would meet 30–60 percent of the average household’s energy needs. The increased housing payment would be offset by reduced utility payments.

Retrofitting an existing home with solar power is also possible. A three-part series on the PBS television program Nova documented the conversion of a 1960s southern California house into a zero energy home (excluding cooking gas). After incentive and tax rebates, the total cost of going solar was $43,000. The homeowners estimate that they will make their money back in seven years of saved energy bills and auto fuel. Furthermore, their unused energy is funneled back into the southern California power grid, earning the owners $200–$300 a year in credit.

Blowin’ in the Wind …

Man has been using wind as his workhorse for over a millennium. As early as the ninth century, vertical-axle windmills were used to grind grains and siphon water in Persia. Modern versions of these were seen in Europe toward the end of the twelfth century. The latest descendent of the windmill, the wind turbine, is popping up all over the world as a legitimate source of renewable energy.

Airplane-wing technology has made modern turbine propeller blades more efficient than their predecessors. Additionally, the turbines are mechanized to turn to face the wind, further improving energy collection. Current models are able to harness about 50 percent of the energy in wind, rapidly approaching the 59 percent theoretical limit. Most appealingly, wind farms require no fuel and have zero emissions. Wind’s major drawback, like solar, is its dependency on the weather. Power cannot be generated when wind is not blowing. In addition, stronger winds are generally found far from cities where it is needed the most.

To the average consumer this means a commercial turbine producing two megawatts (MW) costs $3.5 million. Its smaller 10 kilowatt (kW) cousin is strong enough to power an average household and will set you back $40,000 to $70,000. But even the residential variety turbine is not something an urban dweller could simply plant in their postage-stamp-sized backyard. The 10 kW model sold by the Oklahoma-based Bergey Windpower Company is 23 feet in diameter and installed on an 80–100 foot tower. Such a behemoth structure would be restricted by most urban zoning laws. Other cons include noise pollution and a questionable aesthetic. However if you have a lot of space and an agreeable neighborhood association, it’s an option worth considering. Over its estimated life span of 30 years, a residential turbine will save Mother Earth from 1.2 tons of air pollutants and 200 tons of greenhouse gases. To seriously consider this option, look into your local zoning regulations.

US wind use pales in comparison to that of Denmark and Spain, whose wind power respectively accounts for 20 percent and 10 percent of their energy consumption.

The American Wind Energy Association reports wind accounting for 1 percent of US energy in 2008, serving the equivalent of 4.5 million American households. The market hasn’t even skimmed the surface of its potential according to a recent Stanford University report claiming that wind contains enough energy to meet global demand 35 times over. And to these kinds of numbers governments are starting to listen. The European Union hopes wind power will meet 20 percent of its energy needs by 2020—a benchmark the US Department of Energy (DOE) wants to meet by 2030.

And it burns, burns, burns, burns…

The burning core of our planet is the root of geothermal power, which uses heat stored beneath the earth’s surface. The deeper you go, the hotter it gets, peaking at a scorching 9932° F at the core. Archeologists suspect that geothermal heat has been used by humans for a many as 10,000 years. Indigenous populations used North American hot springs for bathing and therapeutic purposes.

In 1904 a modern incarnation of this technology took the form of a generator built on a dry steam field by the Italian Prince Conti. Although his invention illuminated only four light bulbs, the concept evolved into the first industrial geothermal power plant. In 1922 American John Grant powered his famous Californian resort, The Geysers, with a geothermal plant. The plant became defunct but was later redeveloped and is now home to 21 geothermal plants. Although The Geysers pumps out 750 MW of energy, geothermal accounts for less than 1 percent of American energy. More impressive international success stories include the Philippines, whose government reports 27 percent of its energy coming from geothermal.

Geothermal plants are diverse in their specific technologies. The most common binary-cycle type uses hot geothermal water to vaporize a second fluid with a lower boiling point. The resulting steam drives an energy-harvesting turbine. Because water is depleted, this is not technically a renewable resource. However water loss can be managed with methods like reinjection into the ground. The Geysers uses treated sewage water from nearby Santa Rosa, simultaneously creating renewability and providing a solution for city waste. A 2007 Wall Street Journal article reports geothermal plants leave smaller footprints than even solar or wind plants. Carbon emissions weigh in around 10 percent of those produced by typical coal-burning plant, according to one EPA report. Perhaps most attractive, geothermal energy is available irrespective of weather the wind blows or the sun shines.

Given the offset of the water consumption by the other green features, the technology is included in the green category, getting favorable nods from environmental advocacy groups such as Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Like wind and solar, geothermal offers consumers a residential option in the form of heat pumps, specifically ground-source heat pumps (GHPs). They capitalize on the constant and moderate temperature of the Earth’s surface. Regardless of sweltering or frigid weather forecasts, the majority of the planet maintains a constant 50–60° F in its first three meters underground.

GHPs work via water-filled pipes running below the frost line which transfer the Earth’s heat to a pump. This pump extracts heat and delivers it to the home through air ducts. Some GHPs use this technology in reverse to cool in the summertime and still others can also provide residential hot water.

The efficiency of the system relative to air source systems comes first from the use of water, which gains and loses heat more efficiently than air. The second point of efficiency comes from the nature of ground water temperatures, which tend to be more moderate than air temperatures during the hot summer or cold winter.

In spite of the electricity required to operate the pump, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that GHPs can reduce energy consumption by up to 70 percent of traditional residential heating methods. The US DOE reports a typical GHP installation will pay for itself in five to ten years via energy-bill savings. Although GHPs can be installed in both new and existing houses, retrofitting may not be possible in homes whose ductwork is incompatible with the system. Tips for installation are available at the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency’s website:

Catch a Wave and You’re Sitting on Top of the World …

Lagging behind the renewable energy pack is wave power. Like geothermal, wind, and solar, the ocean’s waves have enough power to meet global energy demands and then some. Nonetheless, commercial wave farms didn’t appear until late 2007 off the coast of Portugal.

Steven Salter, a Scottish engineer, developed the first wave generator in the mid 1970s. The invention was a string of large canisters, called Salter’s Duck, tethered to the ocean floor. A generator and hydraulics extracted electricity from the wave-powered rocking motion of these canisters.

Though technological refinements made wave power price-competitive with nuclear power, by the early 1980s the British government shut down the project without ever testing the Salter’s Duck in the open ocean. Some believe this decision was influenced by nuclear industry lobbyists.

Building off Salter’s ideas, the current Portuguese installment makes use of wave-powered undulations with flexible horizontal pipe. The resulting displacement of hydraulic fluid at the pipes’ hinges drives an energy-collecting turbine. Another technology, called the AquabuOY, is in development off the coast of California. The AquabuOY is a vertical tube whose wave powered bouncing pressurizes water and drives a turbine.

Major obstacles in wave technology development include designing hardware that can withstand the physical assault of ocean storms, transporting equipment to the open sea, and transporting power from the wave farms back to the grid. Environmental concerns include possible hydraulic fluid leaks and disturbance of marine life—neither of which are insurmountable barriers. Wave power is a relatively young technology and like any child, its potential for growth is still untapped.

So whether it comes on a wave, from the ground, through the air, or from the sun, it’s clear that the benefits of getting naked (with energy that is) are many. A future with renewable, sustainable energy foretells an economy without dependence on foreign oil and with the potential to actually export energy. Add to the mix the creation of new and better quality jobs (maybe it’s time to hang up the dangerous coal miner hats?) and a cleaner, safer environment and the potential is as clear as the air that we might someday breathe.

http://www.examiner.com/x-8364-Portland-DIY-Environmentalism-Examiner~y2009m5d24-Renewable-energy-at-home

Uranium mines 'flood prone'

Comment: Virginia Uranium SubCom should consider the flooding caused by hurricanes and our local heavy rain storms before they decide about uranium mining, plus uranium mining will not bring jobs to the area, the miners will come from Canada!!!!

Tony Moore
May 22, 2009 - 3:07PM

Uranium mining does not produce jobs and is increasingly flood-prone, meaning toxic waste could run from flooded tailings dams, Queensland's Conservation Council said this morning.

QCC co-ordinator Toby Hutcheon said he acknowledged the job losses predicted by Australia's peak mining organisation in Queensland's mining industry as a result of an emission trading scheme.

However Mr Hutcheon said he did not accept this meant a shift to nuclear energy as a green source of producing electricity, saying Queensland had just two per cent of Australia's uranium reserves.

He said Queensland Premier Anna Bligh should instead build on her plans - announced in the State Budget - to produce local and regional jobs through a grass-roots solar hot water installation program.

"Uranium mining is not a big earner and it is not a big job creator for a start," Mr Hutcheon said.

"And the key issue is that now almost all of Queensland's uranium deposits were under water at the beginning of this year.

"And with floods set to become more regular we have a resource that is essentially in an inappropriate location.

"And it would be inappropriate to develop it.

"You could have old tailings dams running into the rivers and creeks."

Mr Hutcheon said the impact of an emission trading scheme on Queensland's carbon-intensive mining industry should be replaced by a bigger investment in industries linked to solar power.

"You have hundreds of thousands of roofs in every major city in Queensland that don't have a solar hot water system on them," Mr Hutcheon said.

"How many jobs could be created by a program of putting solar panels and solar hot water on all those roofs?" he asked.

"It creates local regional jobs and it has the effect of reducing energy costs for all those households."

The Premier promised 200,000 solar-powered hot water systems for Queensland during the March State Election.

The ACTU and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) in October 2008 published a "Green Gold Rush" policy statement predicting the number of green jobs in Australia could increase from 112,000 to 500,000 by 2030.

This would include jobs in renewable energy, sustainable water, biomaterials, green buildings, waste and recycling.

Mr Hutcheon said it was clear Queensland's economy was vulnerable as prices for mineral exports fell.

"And it is likely that we will see a decline in demand as countries look to find alternatives other than using coal," he said.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/qld-news/uranium-mines-flood-prone-20090522-bhzo.html

CHAT WITH A FIRE TOWER

Comment: thought was a interesting article and here we 30 something years later still not changing energy needs, oil, nuke plants still leading the way with their greed, come on America, we need True Green Energy, Wind, Solar, Tide, Thermal - NO NUKE POWERS, NO URANIUM MINING!!!

Published on May 17, 2009 in environmental technologies.

The article below appeared in a 1973 issue of “Forest notes,” as well as the Waterville Valley “Wig Wag.” While a quarter century has passed, Hans’ story is as relevant ever. Why didn’t we listen then?…

Some people are given to day-dreaming. I am one of them. My latest daydream had to do with the fire tower on top of Mt. Osceola and a chat I had with that old lady (like ships and railroad engines, a fire tower is a “she”).

You look unhappy, I said to her.

I am, said she. People think I am useless. They don’t need me anymore. And yet I could be useful. Not by watching out for forest fires — airplanes do a better job of that nowadays. They have wings. Now, if I had wings…

Good heavens, I said, you don’t want wings to fly away with?

O no! not that kind of wings, but wings such as windmills have. I could be a WINDMILL.

A windmill? What for? Windmills went out of fashion fifty years ago.

Some fashions have a come-back, she said. 1 could be a modern windmill with big aerodynamic wings. I would drive a generator and produce hundreds of kilowatts of electricity. Clean, too: no fuel to foul up the air. And FREE, almost. No costs except for construction, amortization, and maintenance.

You talk like an engineer, or an economist, or both, I said.

Well, I have lots of time, so I keep busy solving problems: science, technology, ecology, and so on. Take ENERGY, for instance. What you people mainly use for energy is FOSSIL FUEL: oil, coal, natural gas. It’s all getting terribly expensive. Worse: there will be less and less of it as you need more and more, for more and more people. No end in sight.

And the POLLUTION! Strip-mining … oil spills … it’s a nightmare! You can’t keep this small planet of yours livable that way. Besides, fossil fuel is a “nonrenewable resource.” Once it’s gone, it’s gone for good. Using up fossiI fuel means living off your CAPITAL. Very bad practice, my dear. What has become of the famous Yankee thrift?

I know it’s a problem, I said, but do you have a solution?

I do indeed, It’s the WIND.

People consider wind outmoded as an energy source — it’s just good enough for recreation, for small sailing boats. That’s a mistake. Wind is the greatest natural energy source on earth, ready for use, if you will only put your minds to it. It’s INEXHAUSTIBLE, and it doesn’t pollute.

Remember: WIND drove your New England Clipper Ships across the oceans. They could make 18 knots — not bad even compared with modern oil-driven freighters. About the same time — around 1850 — there were thousands of windmills in the U. S., producing almost a billion and a half horsepowers a year. As recently as fifty years ago the windmills on your farms were still pumping water and driving electric generators, untill the· Rural Electrification Program (based mainly on fossil fuel) made them expendable.

Of course you’ll say: wind is unreliable it isn’t always blowing. What then?

Well, the answer is you STORE ENERGY. You store it while the wind blows, so you have it when it doesn’t. So far there have been mainly two ways to store energy: storage batteries like the ones in your car; or storage reservoirs: you pump water into a reservoir while the wind blows, and release the water to drive turbine generators when it stops. Both ways have drawbacks: batteries are not too efficient, water may be scarce, and reservoirs are expensive to build. But there is now another way: modern FLYWHEELS.

Read about Flywheels in the December, 1973, issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. It’s fabulous what ultra-modern flywheels can do. Traditional flywheels are clumsy and heavy. The modern ones are light they substitute whirling speed for weight. They can store energy several times as economically as batteries, and they can be made to run for weeks, even months, once they have been set whirling by wind of any other power. Unlike water reservoirs you can put them up anywhere, and they don’t take much space. One can make them so small and light one can install them in a compact electric automobile and make it run 200 miles at 60 m.p.h. on ONE charge.

Sounds incredible, doesn’t it?

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a trustworthy publication, and so is SMITHSONIAN magazine which carries a fascinating article on WIND POWER, in its

November, 1973, issue: a committee of experts from N. S. F. (National Science Foundation), and from N. A. S. A. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) have figured out that with a major WIND POWER PROGRAM the U. S. could produce, within 25 years or so, the installations to generate 1.5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year equal to the total consumed in the whole country in 1970. The people from N. S. F. and N. A. S. A. should know what they are talking about. After all, they are the ones that sent men to the moon.

They suggest huge wind-driven generators, arranged in widely extended GRIDS, so when some of those “super windmills” are becalmed, the others take up the slack. Such arrangement would take care of most of your nation’s energy needs, stretch your dwindling fossil fuel supplies many times over, protect you against blackmail from oil suppliers abroad, and help preserve your environment. Some of those grids could be built on platforms in the ocean, off the

Atlantic and Pacific coasts, with double advantage: sea winds blow strong most of the time, and you could use some of the energy to produce HYDROGEN from sea-water, by electrolsis. That would mean one more way to store energy: hydrogen can drive combustion engines such as automobile motors, and it is a clean fuel; when you burn it the result is WATER.

And one more word about that storage problem: you can avoid it altogether, in many cases, by feeding the electricity produced by windmills into an existing

power system. Remember the giant windmill on “Grandpa’s Knob,” near Rutland, Vermont, more than thirty years ago? It was the largest windmill ever built, 175 feet across. It could, and did, generate 1250 kilowatt of electric energy (enough to light a town) which was fed into the network of the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation: no storage problem, you see! It was an experimental machine which was dismantled after one blade broke off in March, 1945, and war-time shortages made replacement impossible, but it showed how one could use wind energy on a large scale.

To sum it up: what you need is a CRASH PROGRAM TO HARNESS WIND POWER. I’d be glad to help if I can.

It sounds convincing, I said, but I have three questions: 1) how about ATOMIC ENERGY; 2) in the daily papers one hardly ever reads about WIND as energy source: Why? 3) if wind power is all that promising, why doesn’t our government take the lead and start a CRASH PROGRAM?

The answers aren’t easy, she said, but I’ll try.

1) You already have quite a few nuclear power plants, and many more under construction, but there are serious problems: HEAT POLLUTION; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; URANIUM getting scarce; danger of sabotage. If a fanatic should succeed in blowing up an atomic plant, you’d have a home-made Hiroshima right in the U.S.

2) The silence about WIND POWER puzzles me too I can’t answer that. Perhaps YOU can do something about it: write a letter to your hometown newspaper, talk about it with your friends.

3) Here things get complicated. You have, as Mark Twain put it, “the best government money can buy,” but that isn’t good enough.

You see, there are billions and billions invested in the Oil, Coal, Gas and Atomic business.

It’s extremely profitable, and many corporations in this field are international. That’s important. In business profits come first. The nation’s interest is a poor second, especially with an international outfit.

You may not like this set-up but there it is. And it’s only human that those who reap enormous profit from this set-up will hold on to it with all their might, which is plenty. When they speak, the government listens.

But nobody owns the wind. There’s no money invested in it, so there is no “wind lobby,” and nobody speaks to the government for the wind. Nobody, that is, except scientists, and to them the government hardly listens. Yet the best of your scientists have people’s interest in mind rather than the profits of giant corporations. In· the present crisis you need scientific advice more than ever, but President Nixon has unfortunately abolished the “White House Office of Scientific Advisors.”

And note this: your government’s budget for 1974 foresees $618 mill ion for atomic research: 170 million for research in fossil fuel - mainly coal; 24 million for research in geothermal and solar energy; and aII of 1.25 million for WIND RESEARCH. To put man on the moon cost 25 billion ~ that’s two thousand times as much as the government plans to spend on wind research …

Speaking of MONEY, the oil-producing countries are wading in cash already. Within a few years they’ll have hundreds of billions of dollars to dispose of — more than they can ever use at home. So what will they do with those billions? You yourself showed them: invest in real estate and industry, not in their own countries but abroad. Right here in the United States, for instance. If you don’t watch out they could, before long, turn your proud independent country into one gigantic “Banana Republic.” How would you like that? How can you avoid it? Not by draining your own fossil fuel (and in the process destroying your environment)nor by building hundreds of nuclear reactors, accumulating unmanageable masses of deadly poisonous radio-active wastes - but by turning back to that old, tested, clean standby: the WIND.

I could go on and one, she said, but let me mention just one more point: not all nations ignore the “wind challenge.” The Germans, for instance, are constructing DYNA-SHIPS, as they call them. Big wind-driven freighters of 17,000 tons, with computer-controlled sails, designed to make 20 knots. They’ll have auxiliary motors, of course, but even so, they’ll use only 5% as much fuel as oil-driven freighters of that size. And now I’ll shut up.

She was as good as her word. Maybe she was a bit single-minded — wind is one way, but not the only one, to replace fossil fuels. Nevertheless, her facts and figures were true, and they set me thinking.

There was a fellow once, so they say, who fought against windmills, on horseback, with his lance. We still call a senseless undertaking “a fight against windmills.” It seems to me we’ll have to do the opposite: we’ll have to fight FOR WINDMILLS!

Sidebar notes from the original article:

H. A. Rey, who wrote this “Chat With A Fire Tower,” is an old·timer. Born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1898 and a veteran World War I, he lived for twelve years in Brazil and four years in France before coming to the U. S. in 1940. He is known to millions, here and abroad, as the author-illustrator of the books about a mischievous monkey named CURIOUS GEORGE and of two very popular books on astronomy.

Mr. Rey and his wife Margaret (an author in her own right) live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the winter and spend their summers in Waterville Valley. From their front yard they can see an abandoned Fire Tower on the top of Mt. Osceola. In days gone by, before airplanes took over, a guard in the tower used to watch out for forest fires, during dry spells.

The Reys are life members of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

http://reycenter.org/?p=4126

Win-Wind: Nuclear Power Setback Could Be Windpower's Gain

Comment: Attention, Corporate Virginia, NO URANIUM MINING, NO NUKE POWER, GET WITH THE GREEN WORLD, NOT THE OLD WAYS OF DURING THINGS!!!

Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:52 PM

(Source: Claremore Daily Progress)By Joy Hampton, Claremore Daily Progress, Okla.

May 9--U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) announced Thursday the budget slash delivered by President Barack Obama to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada means the project will be shut down.

"It's over," said Reid in a video posted to the senator's Web site. In that video, Reid commends Obama for staying true to his word. "The only monies used now will be to terminate the project."
Opponents of nuclear power cite the issue of waste disposal as a primary concern. Proponents have pointed to Yucca Mountain as the solution. That's a solution Reid has opposed for two decades. The proposed nuclear waste dump is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

If the Yucca Mountain project is indeed dead, that could be a setback to future development of nuclear energy.

The current "green" push is for renewable energy sources including wind, a developing industry in Oklahoma.

"The WINDPOWER 2009 Conference in Chicago is wrapping up today," said DMI General Manager Gary Williams on Thursday. The Catoosa factory manufactures wind towers. Williams attended the conference on Wednesday which saw notables such as T. Boone Pickens.

"We need a national renewable plan," said Williams. He said Obama has been helpful and the current administration has adopted elements of Pickens's plan.

"Transmission lines are a big part of that," said Williams. He, like other energy industry officials, say the government should invest in a national transmission system similar to the investment made in the highway system.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has said renewable energy will take high priority under the current administration.

Last month, Reid introduced the Clean Renewable Energy and Economic Development Act which is intended to promote investment in the transmission of electricity with the lion's share of that transmission capacity reserved for renewable sources such as wind and solar power. The proposed bill also addresses nation-level transmission planning.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the Clean Energy Aspects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sign by Obama Feb. 17 represents "significant and positive benefits for the renewable energy industry."

Highlights of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as it affects renewable energy include tax credits, grants, a new Department of Energy loan guarantee program directing $4 billion to promote renewable energy and $2 billion to promote transmission, and other incentives.

Williams said support for wind energy will have a positive trickle-down effect in Oklahoma.

"It will benefit the supply chain," said Williams. Additional transmission and wind farms means more business for DMI, and more production at DMI means local employment and the purchase of other goods and services from area business.

Affordable, renewable energy and a decreased reliance on foreign oil is part of the goal proposed by renewable energy proponents. Though wind energy is only expected to comprise a small percentage of Oklahoma's overall energy portfolio, it is an important part of a diverse folder of options for the windy state. The Oklahoma Wind Power Initiative, a collaborative project between the states two major public universities, is devoted to the investigation and promotion of wind energy in Oklahoma.

Rural states like Oklahoma, Texas and Nevada are likely to be some of the biggest winners if wind energy continues to grow.

Reid's bill, if passed into law, is certainly designed to benefit Nevada with the state's potential for solar, wind and geothermal renewable energy resources.

Critics say Reid's bill would give too much power to the federal government to establish "green zones," requiring states to comply by building transmission lines that must transmit high percentages of renewable energy.

Proponents say the bill is intended to promote investment in transmission.

Power industry officials in Oklahoma have long said transmission is an issue of growing concern. In the case of wind generation, it is critical.

Wind farms are often located in remote areas. Without transmission lines, there is no way to get the power generated by those wind turbines to customers who need the power.

Transmission is a factor in traditional energy generation as well.

Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is working on the issue. As of mid-March FERC accelerated the development of a "Smart Grid." The primary effect of the gird would be more efficient transmission with less loss of energy along the way.

"By minimizing line losses, Smart Grid technologies will allow generators to produce less energy and less pollution, while delivering the same amount of electricity to customers," said FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller in a March 19 press release.

Meantime, the wind power industry has suffered along with the rest of the nation.

"The general industry thinking is that 2010 will be much better than 2009," said Williams.

He said current politics will set policy that affects the industry.

"We need our legislators to keep the ball moving. We're positioned well here in Oklahoma to profit by wind."

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3225532

Photovoltaic systems growing faster than other renewable sources

Comment: more solar, wind, tide power not Nuke Power!!!

5:50 p.m., May 5, 2009----Photovoltaic power generation grew by 73 percent between 2007-08, making it the fastest growing source of alternative energy, Monica Oliphant, president of the International Solar Energy Society (ISES), said upon her arrival in Delaware from Australia to attend the 2009 Karl Böer Solar Energy Medal of Merit ceremony at the University of Delaware on Thursday, May 7.

The 2009 award will be presented to Hermann Scheer, a member of German Parliament, president of EUROSOLAR and chairperson of the World Council for Renewable Energy, at 3 p.m., in Gore Recital Hall of the Roselle Center for the Arts on UD's Newark, Del., campus. Those who plan to attend should RSVP to the Office of the Provost at [provost-office@udel.edu].

Oliphant said there are not many awards for scientists, especially for renewable energy, so the Böer award, which is given by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES), an independent chapter of ISES, is highly respected around the world.

Oliphant, who is also a board member of ISES and a member of the Böer award selection committee, said that Scheer stood out among all the applicants because of his role in developing and promoting the concept of feed-in tariffs, which pays up to three times the normal tariffs for photovoltaic energy that is fed into the grid in many countries.

“Because of that, Germany has moved to the forefront in the penetration of photovoltaic energy,” Oliphant said. “In the city of Freiburg, the penetration of photovoltaic systems is very high. You hardly see any house without a photovoltaic system because it is a good income earner.”

Feed-in tariffs have been accepted in about 70 countries and “it has been the single greatest incentive for the penetration of photovoltaic systems around the world,” Oliphant said.

Oliphant lauded the recent announcement by UD President Patrick Harker that the University would install photovoltaic systems that would eventually generate 6 MW of electricity.

“I think it's a great initiative, It's really something special. It will be the first University in the world to generate such an amount of photovoltaic power, and it will offset quite a lot of carbon emissions,” Oliphant said. “It is also worth noting that a lot of photovoltaic systems, particularly thin film technology was developed at the University of Delaware at the IEC, which was started by Karl Böer.”

The medal and a cash award of $50,000, funded by the Karl W. Böer Solar Energy Medal of Merit Trust, is given every two years to an individual who has made significant pioneering contributions to the promotion of solar energy as an alternate source of energy through research, development or economic enterprise or to an individual who has made extraordinarily valuable and enduring contributions to the field of solar energy in other ways.

The award is given in honor of Karl Wolfgang Böer, a longtime University of Delaware faculty member, founder of UD's Institute of Energy Conversion and a distinguished scientist in the field of solar cells.

The recipient of the award is chosen by a panel of commissioners composed of scientists and presidents of several solar energy-related professional societies, a representative of the U.S. Secretary of Energy, the past recipient and a member of the Böer family.

Scheer, who has been a member of the German Parliament since 1980, was named president of EUROSOLAR in 1988 and was made chairperson of the World Council for Renewable Energy in 2001.

He has a doctorate in economic and social science from the Free University of Berlin.

Scheer was an assistant professor at the Technical University of Stuttgart in the Faculty of Economics from 1972-78 and worked as a system analyst at the German Nuclear Research Centre from 1978-
80.

Since 1980, when he was first elected as a member of the German Parliament, he has served as chairperson of the Arms Control and Disarmament Committee and since 1983 has been delegated by the German Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He also served as chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture between 1994 and 1997.

Scheer holds two Doctor honoris causa, one from the Technical University of Varna (Bulgaria) and the other from the University of Luneburg (Germany).

He has chaired as well as initiated numerous international research and development conferences, such as the first and second World Renewable Energy Forums in 2002 and 2004, the International Parliamentary Forum on Renewable Energy in 2004 and the World Renewable Energy Assembly in 2007.

Scheer was awarded the World Solar Prize by the second World Conference on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion in Vienna in 1998 and received the Alternative Nobel Prize in Stockholm in 1999.

He was named Hero for the Green Century by Time magazine in 2002, received the Global Leadership Award from the American Council on Renewable Energy in 2004, the World Wind Energy Award from the World Wind Energy Conference in Beijing in 2004, and the SolarWorld Einstein Award by Solar World in 2005.

The first Karl W. Böer Solar Energy Medal of Merit award was presented in 1993 to former President Jimmy Carter, who was cited as an individual who spurred development and focused world attention on solar energy.

Other recipients of the Böer medal include:

1995, David E. Carlson, vice president of the Thin Film Division of Solarex, an AMOCO subsidiary;

1997, Adolf Goetzberger, founder of the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems;

1999, Stanford R. Ovshinsky, a pioneer in the science of amorphous semiconductors resulting in the development of low-cost, thin-film silicon solar cells;

2001, Allen M. Barnett, a pioneer in high-performance, thin-crystalline silicon solar cells and currently senior scientist in UD's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering;

2003, Martin A. Green, Inaugural Scientia Professor at the Centre for Photovoltaic Engineering in Sydney, Australia, and foundation director for the Centre for Third Generation University of New South Wales in Sydney;

2005, Yoshihiro Hamakawa, adviser professor to the chancellor at Ritsumeikan University in Shiga, Japan, and a prominent scholar in the field of solar photovoltaic energy; and

2007, Lawrence L. Kazmerski, director, U.S. Department of Energy's National Center for Photovoltaics and a pioneer and leader in the field of solar electricity.

Article by Martin A Mbugua

http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2009/may/oliphant050509.html