Two reasons for optimism on Clean Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-27-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Two reasons for optimism on Clean Energy
1. If you’ve not yet voted and can vote in California, be SURE to vote against Proposition 23 that would kill off new clean energy jobs and even some existing ones and increase air pollution in the state.
The very good news is that the polls have the NO side ahead by a healthy margin as of the most recent poll.
That’s a relief. But games and wars and political contests can be lost by the side that’s ahead at the last minute if the people who are ahead stop making an effort before they are over.
So while the news is good, be SURE to vote against prop 23 if you can but have not yet done so.
Also, the two state wide candidates for Governor and for the US Senate who would like to do as prop 23 suggests and suspend AB 32, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, are also losing in the polls.
As a progressive Republican, I support more jobs in California and more participation by Californians in the major growth business sector of the next 30 or 40 years, clean energy.
The evidence for clean energy doing these things is clear enough that, despite the fact that Whitman and Fiorina are Republicans, they are not competent for the positions they are seeking due to their ignorance. That makes the issues on which I agree with them irrelevant.
Conversely, though neither is perfect, both Jerry Brown and Barbara
Boxer DO know and ALREADY have a track-record of taking action personally to support clean energy.
So, similarly, please be sure to vote for Brown and Boxer if you can vote in California and have not yet done so.
Still, the news that in the 3 races in California that can most impact clean energy, the good guys are clearly ahead is welcome news indeed.
2. The other news on clean energy is quite different. But it has HUGE implications.
To build the clean energy economy large enough and to get it done fast enough, we need most of the people helping get it done.
So far, that has NOT happened.
People who believe the science that global warming will cause huge and expensive problems beginning right now if it isn’t turned way down soon support clean energy and building it up fast enough and on a large enough scale.
Similarly, the people who see the reports saying fossil fuel availability will fall behind energy demand enough to cause severe price run ups within 15 or 20 years or even sooner, as I do, support clean energy and building it up fast enough and on a large enough scale.
Why the people who understand that science and the understanding it provides enables them to drive cars that work at least most of the time and use electronic communications that work even more reliably fail to believe in science when it reveals global warming and the likely problems it causes are real is not something I completely understand.
But between their wishing it wasn’t so and the disinformation they see from short sighted and badly managed companies that fear they will lose money unless they fight efforts to use less fossil fuels, a very large number of people DO disbelieve the science behind global warming.
To be fair one writer points out that the media have announced many problems that looked to be quite serious that never were a few years later. He thinks that global warming is real but will turn out to be no big deal as those previous problems did.
He has a serious point. Unfortunately, this time it looks like from the science that he is horribly mistaken.
So, what’s the good news about all this?!
It’s been recently proven that even people who disbelieve in global warming and running short on fossil fuels will support taking action on clean energy! Even better, they will actually take action on making clean energy happen!
That is extremely good news and is critically important to making clean energy happen soon enough and on a large enough scale.
What happened?
A woman realized that the climate warming deniers all still liked saving money, they all liked creating more local jobs, and they all were patriotic enough and knowledgeable enough about the risks of our extreme dependence on imported oil they ARE willing to take action on clean energy when it saves them money, creates more local jobs, and increases our freedom from dependence on imported oil.
She put together a program showing ways people could act on clean energy that would do these things and she added a religious faith based appeal for clean environment as a way of preserving God’s creation. That too is sound. Cleaner sources of energy and more pollution reduction do help keep their local environment in its original condition instead of having it get worse.
This was done in Kansas where there is significant wind power potential. Her program emphasized ways to save money, make money, and create local jobs by tapping wind power and by finding many other ways to save energy and become more energy efficient – and save money personally.
People were quite fond of these benefits and actually took action. Kansas landed a very large wind power equipment manufacturer and began to do more to harvest wind generated electricity there. And, there are many places in Kansas that are saving money still due to the increases in energy efficiency in those places.
In short, even people who don’t believe scientists and oil supply experts -- or don’t want to -- are happy to support clean energy if they see what it does for them in other ways that do not relate to those concerns.
The clean energy supporting people need to find more ways to build on these themes to make enough happen soon enough and to get the wide based political support needed to do so.
The very good news is that there is such a winning strategy and it has been proven to work!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Why be SURE to Vote NO on 23....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-20-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Why be SURE to Vote NO on 23
1. There are jobs in clean energy at stake if 23 passes. Not only that many of these are jobs where young people are wanted and can do well.
The backers say 23 will prevent jobs from being lost. But the people who actually did the study the backers pointed to came out in the paper saying that their study found that the number of old industry jobs would likely remain constant instead. The backers made up the lost jobs claim to scare the uninformed in other words.
2. The backers have refineries in California now that already release pollutants that the regulations now say they should not and refuse to pay to clean up the mess. Now, they ARE spending money on 23 to cut back on the regulations so they can spend even less and pollute more.
I live clear on the other side of the San Francisco Bay from the refineries and some mornings, they release so much I can smell the pollution now. If 23 passes that might get even worse.
3. Adding more clean energy will put more money into the economy by giving us alternatives to oil. So when oil begins to go way back up in price, we will still have energy sources and sources that are cheaper. And, when oil begins to run out, maybe our economy will survive without collapsing.
Voting against 23 makes sense. The people who think otherwise are mostly ignorant or believe the lies they've been told.
If enough of us vote and vote against 23, we can have a better economy, safer air, and more jobs.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-20-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Why be SURE to Vote NO on 23
1. There are jobs in clean energy at stake if 23 passes. Not only that many of these are jobs where young people are wanted and can do well.
The backers say 23 will prevent jobs from being lost. But the people who actually did the study the backers pointed to came out in the paper saying that their study found that the number of old industry jobs would likely remain constant instead. The backers made up the lost jobs claim to scare the uninformed in other words.
2. The backers have refineries in California now that already release pollutants that the regulations now say they should not and refuse to pay to clean up the mess. Now, they ARE spending money on 23 to cut back on the regulations so they can spend even less and pollute more.
I live clear on the other side of the San Francisco Bay from the refineries and some mornings, they release so much I can smell the pollution now. If 23 passes that might get even worse.
3. Adding more clean energy will put more money into the economy by giving us alternatives to oil. So when oil begins to go way back up in price, we will still have energy sources and sources that are cheaper. And, when oil begins to run out, maybe our economy will survive without collapsing.
Voting against 23 makes sense. The people who think otherwise are mostly ignorant or believe the lies they've been told.
If enough of us vote and vote against 23, we can have a better economy, safer air, and more jobs.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The backer's claims of job loss are FAKES -- Vote NO on 23....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-13-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
The backer's claims of job loss are FAKES -- Vote NO on 23
I’ve already posted that the jobs California would LOSE if the current Proposition 23 were to pass ARE real while the jobs the backers of 23 said we would lose if it is not are not at all likely to be real.
Shortly after I got home last week after my last post, I found out the backers of proposition 23 completely FAKED the lost jobs. They have been lying on purpose and have been quite conscious of it.
Last Wednesday, 10-6-2010, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story showing that the actual researchers who did the study the proposition backers have been quoting said four things:
1. If proposition 23 fails and AB 32 goes into effect, more new clean tech jobs will be created to go with those already created once AB 32 was passed. If Proposition 23 is passed, many of those jobs will either be lost or NOT be created. They noted that, “….jobs in the clean energy sector have grown by 5 percent during the recession while overall employment has fallen."
2. The increases in energy efficiency and supply from AB 32 will IMPROVE the California economy. But that’s ONLY if 23 fails and we can implement AB 32.
3. Businesses that are impacted will have some increased costs initially; but historically such changes mandated by changes in technology tend to increase jobs –NOT make them disappear. These industries will actually have to hire people to make the now necessary changes.
4. Passing Proposition 23 would decrease jobs and harm the California economy. It’s actually the enemy of having more jobs and losing fewer jobs – NOT the reverse.
In short, the people who actually did the study that looked at the issue were quoted as saying the reverse by the backers of Proposition 23.
Proposition 23 IS the enemy of jobs in California. The backers of Proposition 23 lied on purpose. Their credibility was based on this study. But the people who did the study actually found the reverse of what the backers of Proposition 23 said. Their argument was FAKED to scare people who have been concerned about jobs.
The good news is that many of these less educated people who now favor 23 based on those scare tactics tend to not always vote.
So please join me in voting NO on 23. And, be SURE to vote!
My wife and I did that by voting last weekend by absentee ballot.
Also, despite the fact that I think some of what Meg Whitman says is sound, the fact that she knows so little about today’s economy and what it needs that she would suspend AB 32 while the economy is bad means to me she is so ignorant that she is not qualified to be Governor of California. I voted against her for that reason.
Carly Fiorina talks a good game but actually came out in FAVOR of Proposition 23. Some of her backers are coal companies that promote the idea that global warming isn’t real.
The fact that she knows so little about today’s economy and what it needs that she would help suspend AB 32 means to me she is so ignorant that she is not qualified to be a United States Senator representing the state where I live. I voted against her for that reason.
Since the energy economy is to me the most important issue today, I suggest you join me in those two votes also.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-13-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
The backer's claims of job loss are FAKES -- Vote NO on 23
I’ve already posted that the jobs California would LOSE if the current Proposition 23 were to pass ARE real while the jobs the backers of 23 said we would lose if it is not are not at all likely to be real.
Shortly after I got home last week after my last post, I found out the backers of proposition 23 completely FAKED the lost jobs. They have been lying on purpose and have been quite conscious of it.
Last Wednesday, 10-6-2010, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story showing that the actual researchers who did the study the proposition backers have been quoting said four things:
1. If proposition 23 fails and AB 32 goes into effect, more new clean tech jobs will be created to go with those already created once AB 32 was passed. If Proposition 23 is passed, many of those jobs will either be lost or NOT be created. They noted that, “….jobs in the clean energy sector have grown by 5 percent during the recession while overall employment has fallen."
2. The increases in energy efficiency and supply from AB 32 will IMPROVE the California economy. But that’s ONLY if 23 fails and we can implement AB 32.
3. Businesses that are impacted will have some increased costs initially; but historically such changes mandated by changes in technology tend to increase jobs –NOT make them disappear. These industries will actually have to hire people to make the now necessary changes.
4. Passing Proposition 23 would decrease jobs and harm the California economy. It’s actually the enemy of having more jobs and losing fewer jobs – NOT the reverse.
In short, the people who actually did the study that looked at the issue were quoted as saying the reverse by the backers of Proposition 23.
Proposition 23 IS the enemy of jobs in California. The backers of Proposition 23 lied on purpose. Their credibility was based on this study. But the people who did the study actually found the reverse of what the backers of Proposition 23 said. Their argument was FAKED to scare people who have been concerned about jobs.
The good news is that many of these less educated people who now favor 23 based on those scare tactics tend to not always vote.
So please join me in voting NO on 23. And, be SURE to vote!
My wife and I did that by voting last weekend by absentee ballot.
Also, despite the fact that I think some of what Meg Whitman says is sound, the fact that she knows so little about today’s economy and what it needs that she would suspend AB 32 while the economy is bad means to me she is so ignorant that she is not qualified to be Governor of California. I voted against her for that reason.
Carly Fiorina talks a good game but actually came out in FAVOR of Proposition 23. Some of her backers are coal companies that promote the idea that global warming isn’t real.
The fact that she knows so little about today’s economy and what it needs that she would help suspend AB 32 means to me she is so ignorant that she is not qualified to be a United States Senator representing the state where I live. I voted against her for that reason.
Since the energy economy is to me the most important issue today, I suggest you join me in those two votes also.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
New technology for lower cost LED lights....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-6-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: New technology for lower cost LED lights
Late last week, it was in the technology company news for the Silicon Valley that there is a new company with a technology that may dramatically cut manufacturing costs for LED lights.
As many know, the two reasons that LED lights have yet to completely take over the market for homes and smaller businesses for light bulbs are
that almost none of them fit the lamps and sockets people now have that did fit their old incandescent light bulbs;
&
that LED light bulbs despite dramatic savings on the electricity to operate them of 4 or 5 to one over incandescent light bulbs and they last over 10 times longer, they cost almost 100 times as much per bulb.
Philips is rumored to have begun to make LED light bulbs that fit the lamps and sockets people now have that did fit their old incandescent light bulbs. And, as a company large enough to get an economy of scale, their bulbs may cost $45 instead of $75 or $100 apiece.
But only really serious people about supporting clean energy an energy efficiency will buy at that price.
But if the LEDs themselves cost a fifth or a tenth as much to make, they would rapidly take over the market for light bulbs once they come out in the right sizes.
Maybe that will happen in the next few years.
Here’s the announcement.
GLO-AB-Establishes-Engineering-Center-Silicon-Valley in Sunnyvale
Founded in 2005, glo AB is a venture-backed, development-stage company focused on development and commercialisation of entirely new, highly energy efficient and very low cost nanowire light-emitting diodes (nLED)
glo employs novel, cutting-edge semiconductor nanotechnology to dramatically lower production cost at the die level of Ultra-High-Brightness (UHB) light emitting diodes (LEDs).
A novel type of LED-chip - each with millions of nanowire LEDs or nLED - is expected to offer all the advantages of state-of-the-art conventional planar UHB-LEDs, including high lighting efficiency with very low energy consumption, long lifetime and good functionality,
but at radically lower manufacturing costs.
This is expected to open the door to solid state lighting (SSL) for general illumination markets worldwide.
Sweden's Glo Opens Sunnyvale Facility, Lands $25M and New CEO
Sunnyvale, Calif. -- Glo AB, a Swedish developer of nanowire semiconductor LEDs, said on Friday it has raised $25 million in new funding and established a new engineering center in Sunnyvale. The company also named Fariba Danesh as its CEO. New investor Wellington Partners joined previous backers Provider Venture Partners, Hafslund Venture, Agder Energi Venture, Teknoinvest and VantagePoint Venture Partners.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-6-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: New technology for lower cost LED lights
Late last week, it was in the technology company news for the Silicon Valley that there is a new company with a technology that may dramatically cut manufacturing costs for LED lights.
As many know, the two reasons that LED lights have yet to completely take over the market for homes and smaller businesses for light bulbs are
that almost none of them fit the lamps and sockets people now have that did fit their old incandescent light bulbs;
&
that LED light bulbs despite dramatic savings on the electricity to operate them of 4 or 5 to one over incandescent light bulbs and they last over 10 times longer, they cost almost 100 times as much per bulb.
Philips is rumored to have begun to make LED light bulbs that fit the lamps and sockets people now have that did fit their old incandescent light bulbs. And, as a company large enough to get an economy of scale, their bulbs may cost $45 instead of $75 or $100 apiece.
But only really serious people about supporting clean energy an energy efficiency will buy at that price.
But if the LEDs themselves cost a fifth or a tenth as much to make, they would rapidly take over the market for light bulbs once they come out in the right sizes.
Maybe that will happen in the next few years.
Here’s the announcement.
GLO-AB-Establishes-Engineering-Center-Silicon-Valley in Sunnyvale
Founded in 2005, glo AB is a venture-backed, development-stage company focused on development and commercialisation of entirely new, highly energy efficient and very low cost nanowire light-emitting diodes (nLED)
glo employs novel, cutting-edge semiconductor nanotechnology to dramatically lower production cost at the die level of Ultra-High-Brightness (UHB) light emitting diodes (LEDs).
A novel type of LED-chip - each with millions of nanowire LEDs or nLED - is expected to offer all the advantages of state-of-the-art conventional planar UHB-LEDs, including high lighting efficiency with very low energy consumption, long lifetime and good functionality,
but at radically lower manufacturing costs.
This is expected to open the door to solid state lighting (SSL) for general illumination markets worldwide.
Sweden's Glo Opens Sunnyvale Facility, Lands $25M and New CEO
Sunnyvale, Calif. -- Glo AB, a Swedish developer of nanowire semiconductor LEDs, said on Friday it has raised $25 million in new funding and established a new engineering center in Sunnyvale. The company also named Fariba Danesh as its CEO. New investor Wellington Partners joined previous backers Provider Venture Partners, Hafslund Venture, Agder Energi Venture, Teknoinvest and VantagePoint Venture Partners.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
New resource for energy solutions news....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-29-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: New resource for energy solutions news
Today my CEN National Update email came.
It had some potential good news and some bad news.
But then I noticed that it had a new resource for mostly good news about new projects on many kinds of topics.
The CEN description did not seem to match what I found on the website. BUT, the website was well enough done, I decided to post about it.
www.energyempowers.gov is the web address.
It has some headline stories of different kinds. It had a story about geothermal power, a story about wind power, and one on the new Porsche hybrid. And, it also featured 8 other stories.
But the part I liked best was that they also post stories by energy solutions category and by state.
In California there was a story about a Silicon Valley company that has a way of cutting silicon for wafers with dramatically less waste to cut costs and a Navy location in the Mojave desert to build carports for personnel that protect their cars and their paint from the sun and its heat while also generating photovoltaic solar power on their roofs.
The 3 main story areas are also subdivided. So the site is also useful to find articles on many different energy solution topics.
1. Renewable Energy contains stories by renewable energy source such as solar, wind, and geothermal.
2. Energy Savings has stories by in which area of the economy such as vehicles, homes, buildings, and industry.
3. Grants and tax credits lists those and has stories on people who used them to finance energy solution projects including 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit and WAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program.
These stories show that despite our inability to be as competitive with China and European countries in renewable energy and CO2 reduction due to organized political opposition by old energy companies, the current federal government is making a lot of small progress in dozens of areas that will gradually improve our energy economy and so is the entrepreneurial business community.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-29-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: New resource for energy solutions news
Today my CEN National Update email came.
It had some potential good news and some bad news.
But then I noticed that it had a new resource for mostly good news about new projects on many kinds of topics.
The CEN description did not seem to match what I found on the website. BUT, the website was well enough done, I decided to post about it.
www.energyempowers.gov is the web address.
It has some headline stories of different kinds. It had a story about geothermal power, a story about wind power, and one on the new Porsche hybrid. And, it also featured 8 other stories.
But the part I liked best was that they also post stories by energy solutions category and by state.
In California there was a story about a Silicon Valley company that has a way of cutting silicon for wafers with dramatically less waste to cut costs and a Navy location in the Mojave desert to build carports for personnel that protect their cars and their paint from the sun and its heat while also generating photovoltaic solar power on their roofs.
The 3 main story areas are also subdivided. So the site is also useful to find articles on many different energy solution topics.
1. Renewable Energy contains stories by renewable energy source such as solar, wind, and geothermal.
2. Energy Savings has stories by in which area of the economy such as vehicles, homes, buildings, and industry.
3. Grants and tax credits lists those and has stories on people who used them to finance energy solution projects including 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit and WAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program.
These stories show that despite our inability to be as competitive with China and European countries in renewable energy and CO2 reduction due to organized political opposition by old energy companies, the current federal government is making a lot of small progress in dozens of areas that will gradually improve our energy economy and so is the entrepreneurial business community.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
An upcoming new way to use less oil....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-22-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: An upcoming new way to use less oil
Electric cars are coming soon. Soon there will be both all electric cars and plug-in hybrids available for sale.
That will be quite soon for the Nissan Leaf and GM’s Chevy Volt.
But if you can wait a couple of years or so, or if you only need a two-seater now and can afford to spend more on a car, Tesla Motors may be your best bet.
Their model S will be about as upscale a sedan as an Acura or a Lexus or car from Mercedes Benz.
And, it will get up to 300 miles on a charge. It looks great and will perform better than most upscale sedans that use tons of gas to perform well.
See www.teslamotors.com . Their two seat, tiny roadster will go up to about 200 miles on a charge and gets almost unbelievable performance. That only takes a bit over $100,000 a few months to get.
The model S will cost closer to $60,000 which is close to what comparable gasoline powered cars cost.
Driving these cars using electric power cuts oil use in many ways.
Electricity will increasingly be generated with solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these sources use fossil fuels, let alone oil.
Electricity is already generated by natural gas. With Bloom Energy’s fuel cell technology, that will become even more efficient and create far less air pollution. And, the existing natural gas generation already uses no oil.
Coal is now used to generate electricity, particularly in the Eastern United States. Despite the air pollution and CO2 release problems with that, it uses no oil and thereby driving cars powered electricity from this source uses less oil than driving gasoline powered cars and increases the national security of the United States. Further, when coal is turned directly into natural gas and then fed to a Bloom Energy fuel cell to generate electricity and the CO2 resulting is fed to algae to make biofuels, this will be far cleaner and less polluting and generate less net CO2 than it does now.
So, in every case, driving on electricity, uses no oil and is more desirable than using gasoline.
But, that’s not all!
Electric cars use less energy per mile or per time you accelerate your car than is the case with gasoline or diesel powered cars.
That even means that driving an electric car powered by burning coal now, you cause less CO2 release than you would doing the same driving with a comparable car directly powered by gasoline or diesel.
Electric cars are far from perfect in any way and the technology is a bit new yet; but they will help us use far less oil and release far less CO2 by doing so.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-22-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: An upcoming new way to use less oil
Electric cars are coming soon. Soon there will be both all electric cars and plug-in hybrids available for sale.
That will be quite soon for the Nissan Leaf and GM’s Chevy Volt.
But if you can wait a couple of years or so, or if you only need a two-seater now and can afford to spend more on a car, Tesla Motors may be your best bet.
Their model S will be about as upscale a sedan as an Acura or a Lexus or car from Mercedes Benz.
And, it will get up to 300 miles on a charge. It looks great and will perform better than most upscale sedans that use tons of gas to perform well.
See www.teslamotors.com . Their two seat, tiny roadster will go up to about 200 miles on a charge and gets almost unbelievable performance. That only takes a bit over $100,000 a few months to get.
The model S will cost closer to $60,000 which is close to what comparable gasoline powered cars cost.
Driving these cars using electric power cuts oil use in many ways.
Electricity will increasingly be generated with solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these sources use fossil fuels, let alone oil.
Electricity is already generated by natural gas. With Bloom Energy’s fuel cell technology, that will become even more efficient and create far less air pollution. And, the existing natural gas generation already uses no oil.
Coal is now used to generate electricity, particularly in the Eastern United States. Despite the air pollution and CO2 release problems with that, it uses no oil and thereby driving cars powered electricity from this source uses less oil than driving gasoline powered cars and increases the national security of the United States. Further, when coal is turned directly into natural gas and then fed to a Bloom Energy fuel cell to generate electricity and the CO2 resulting is fed to algae to make biofuels, this will be far cleaner and less polluting and generate less net CO2 than it does now.
So, in every case, driving on electricity, uses no oil and is more desirable than using gasoline.
But, that’s not all!
Electric cars use less energy per mile or per time you accelerate your car than is the case with gasoline or diesel powered cars.
That even means that driving an electric car powered by burning coal now, you cause less CO2 release than you would doing the same driving with a comparable car directly powered by gasoline or diesel.
Electric cars are far from perfect in any way and the technology is a bit new yet; but they will help us use far less oil and release far less CO2 by doing so.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Proposition 23 and jobs....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-15-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Proposition 23 and jobs
The San Francisco Chronicle had a special last Sunday, Sept. 12, 2010. They had one essay in favor of proposition 23 in California and one opposed to proposition 23.
The yes folks said that prop 23 would prevent AB 32 implementation from wiping out thousands or even more than a million jobs of jobs -- or even more than a million jobs.
The no folks said the reverse, that passing prop 23 and wiping out AB 32 implementation would kill new jobs.
Clearly, to voters in the November election, virtually all of whom would like a better economy with more available jobs, jobs are the key issue.
But both sides can’t be correct.
How people will vote depends on who they believe is right.
Since the Pipe Fitters union and a union group of fire fighters were backing 23 and a group of entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley business leaders saying to vote no, clearly the backers of 23 hope that blue collar workers will believe their side and vote in favor of 23.
The major backers of yes on 23 are, according to their official website, “major funding provided by Valero and Tesoro.” These two companies would have to pay more to better clean up the air pollution at their California refineries if 23 fails to cancel clean air provisions as they hope it will do. And, if AB 32 causes gasoline sales to fall a bit by helping provide alternatives and boosting the price of gasoline somewhat, their gasoline sales will fall.
Will that cause them to close their California refineries or layoff workers there? Maybe it might. If it did, since piping is used in their refineries, maybe the Pipefitters union will have some members get laid off too. Even if it happens though, this is hundreds of jobs at companies trying to cut costs by not paying up to clean up their own pollution. It is NOT many thousands of jobs all over the state.
Will a small boost to gasoline prices and utilities bills due to AB 32 being implemented cause the loss of millions of jobs beyond that as they say it will?
They say so just fine. It clearly would be recessionary if it were to happen and voters would prefer that not happen.
But do they present any kind of evidence for this assertion? Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What jobs in what other places in California would be lost? They DO not say.
Conversely the new jobs in clean energy companies already created and likely to be created are verifiable.
In my regular job, I call new and promising companies in the Silicon Valley area. And, I follow clean energy companies from personal interest. I see the growth in clean energy jobs first hand. I know they are real. The solar part of Applied Materials; SunPower; Solyndra; and Nanosolar; and electric car maker, Tesla Motors; and smart grid companies like Trilliant and Silver Spring Networks together have created thousands of new clean energy jobs. And there are literally dozens of smaller clean energy and solar start ups each adding jobs.
If 23 is passed these larger companies will add fewer jobs and some of the smaller companies that would have survived and grown and added new jobs will go out of business instead with their current employees losing their jobs.
So, first of all to me the job losses predicted by the yes on 23 people look to me to be mostly smoke and mirrors while the jobs at stake in clean energy if it were to pass, I see directly.
Unless the yes on 23 people have some real data they are keeping secret and not publicizing, all they are doing is taking oil company money to hoodwink the public.
That’s what I believe is going on.
But what about the argument that increasing energy costs will slow the economy and thereby result in fewer jobs that way?
I agree that is a valid point.
But what the supporters for yes on 23 people fail to understand is that is a very strong reason to vote no on their proposition!
If AB 32 is implemented there will be small increases in gasoline and utility bills in the first year or two afterwards. But that will gradually become a nonissue as too much demand for natural gas and gasoline begins to hit decreasing supplies. In the near term those prices will go up soon anyway because of that supply-demand imbalance.
But if AB 32 is implemented and more energy efficiency efforts are made and more geothermal, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind power – maybe even nuclear power is added that would not have been without it, those prices will be moderated. They will still go up but much more slowly.
Conversely, if prop 23 passes and stops that from happening on that large a scale, both natural gas prices and gasoline will go up MORE and slow the economy more. And that’s on top of killing the new clean energy jobs that would have been created.
So, both groups have it right. The key issue is jobs.
Given the evidence I see, the yes on 23 people don’t have the evidence and the no on 23 people do.
Please vote NO on proposition 23.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-15-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Proposition 23 and jobs
The San Francisco Chronicle had a special last Sunday, Sept. 12, 2010. They had one essay in favor of proposition 23 in California and one opposed to proposition 23.
The yes folks said that prop 23 would prevent AB 32 implementation from wiping out thousands or even more than a million jobs of jobs -- or even more than a million jobs.
The no folks said the reverse, that passing prop 23 and wiping out AB 32 implementation would kill new jobs.
Clearly, to voters in the November election, virtually all of whom would like a better economy with more available jobs, jobs are the key issue.
But both sides can’t be correct.
How people will vote depends on who they believe is right.
Since the Pipe Fitters union and a union group of fire fighters were backing 23 and a group of entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley business leaders saying to vote no, clearly the backers of 23 hope that blue collar workers will believe their side and vote in favor of 23.
The major backers of yes on 23 are, according to their official website, “major funding provided by Valero and Tesoro.” These two companies would have to pay more to better clean up the air pollution at their California refineries if 23 fails to cancel clean air provisions as they hope it will do. And, if AB 32 causes gasoline sales to fall a bit by helping provide alternatives and boosting the price of gasoline somewhat, their gasoline sales will fall.
Will that cause them to close their California refineries or layoff workers there? Maybe it might. If it did, since piping is used in their refineries, maybe the Pipefitters union will have some members get laid off too. Even if it happens though, this is hundreds of jobs at companies trying to cut costs by not paying up to clean up their own pollution. It is NOT many thousands of jobs all over the state.
Will a small boost to gasoline prices and utilities bills due to AB 32 being implemented cause the loss of millions of jobs beyond that as they say it will?
They say so just fine. It clearly would be recessionary if it were to happen and voters would prefer that not happen.
But do they present any kind of evidence for this assertion? Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What jobs in what other places in California would be lost? They DO not say.
Conversely the new jobs in clean energy companies already created and likely to be created are verifiable.
In my regular job, I call new and promising companies in the Silicon Valley area. And, I follow clean energy companies from personal interest. I see the growth in clean energy jobs first hand. I know they are real. The solar part of Applied Materials; SunPower; Solyndra; and Nanosolar; and electric car maker, Tesla Motors; and smart grid companies like Trilliant and Silver Spring Networks together have created thousands of new clean energy jobs. And there are literally dozens of smaller clean energy and solar start ups each adding jobs.
If 23 is passed these larger companies will add fewer jobs and some of the smaller companies that would have survived and grown and added new jobs will go out of business instead with their current employees losing their jobs.
So, first of all to me the job losses predicted by the yes on 23 people look to me to be mostly smoke and mirrors while the jobs at stake in clean energy if it were to pass, I see directly.
Unless the yes on 23 people have some real data they are keeping secret and not publicizing, all they are doing is taking oil company money to hoodwink the public.
That’s what I believe is going on.
But what about the argument that increasing energy costs will slow the economy and thereby result in fewer jobs that way?
I agree that is a valid point.
But what the supporters for yes on 23 people fail to understand is that is a very strong reason to vote no on their proposition!
If AB 32 is implemented there will be small increases in gasoline and utility bills in the first year or two afterwards. But that will gradually become a nonissue as too much demand for natural gas and gasoline begins to hit decreasing supplies. In the near term those prices will go up soon anyway because of that supply-demand imbalance.
But if AB 32 is implemented and more energy efficiency efforts are made and more geothermal, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind power – maybe even nuclear power is added that would not have been without it, those prices will be moderated. They will still go up but much more slowly.
Conversely, if prop 23 passes and stops that from happening on that large a scale, both natural gas prices and gasoline will go up MORE and slow the economy more. And that’s on top of killing the new clean energy jobs that would have been created.
So, both groups have it right. The key issue is jobs.
Given the evidence I see, the yes on 23 people don’t have the evidence and the no on 23 people do.
Please vote NO on proposition 23.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)