The report identifies many country-specific challenges, but findings from the report have found general teething problems exist across all countries.
Common barriers in the permitting process include regulatory requirements falling under a number of departments (though many countries are now streamlining this aspect); the party politicisation of renewables; long lead times to obtain the necessary permits, and weak spatial planning policies.
Since investment decisions are influenced by the permitting and planning of wind farms, delayed consents can increase the risk profile of an offshore wind project and affect its economic viability. Slow consenting also makes it difficult to schedule resources, and it can prohibit innovation. A slow permitting process can mean that turbine design has moved on by the time developers get around to installing turbines.
The European Offshore Wind Standards, Permitting & Markets report provides real data, fresh statistics and 100% independent analysis on helping to navigate offshore wind energy standards, permitting and markets. The report focuses on standards in Europe?s major offshore wind markets, including UK, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Germany and France.
A free summary of the report is available at:
http://www.windenergyupdate.com/standards/report-summary.shtml
Contact:
Tony JackWind Energy Update
+44 (0) 20 73 75 72 24
+1 800 814 3459 + Ext: 7224
tony@windenergyupdate.com
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generators
Free Energy Home
Home Power Generator
Green Energy
Green Energy Sources
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Energy 101: Cool Roofs
This edition of Energy 101 takes a look at how switching to a cool roof can s...
Powered By WizardRSSFree Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator
Powered By WizardRSSFree Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator
Vertical supply chain integration gathers pace in the offshore wind sector
In May 2010 French energy giant Areva took full control of German wind turbine manufacturer Multibrid, forming a new subsidiary called Areva Wind. A few months later in October a long-term partnership agreement was sealed with Beluga Hochtief Offshore, a joint-venture between Hochtief Construction and Beluga Shipping, securing the use of a purpose-built jack-up vessel for offshore wind park installation. Other notable examples of vertical integration in 2010 included energy conglomerate Siemens buying a 49% stake in A2SEA, a supplier of installation vessels for offshore wind farms, for 115million euros and last December?s move by RWE Innogy to invest in purpose-built vessels for installation of turbines and foundations. United Technologies Company (UTC) also recently completed its �139.5million buyout of wind turbine maker Clipper Windpower.
There is a serious limitation in terms of specialised providers across the supply chain in offshore wind. Whether it?s cables, turbines, skilled workers, ports or logistics it is a nascent industry that is in the process of specialisation. There are bottlenecks that need to be overcome in just about every part of the supply chain.
Other sectors such as coal, gas or nuclear have an existing pool of suppliers who can provide services on a turnkey basis. In wind however, the utilities are discovering that they need to do a bit more on their own balance sheet.
There is growing interest being shown in wind by oil service firms. Before wind was seen as a distraction but now it is a much more interesting business. Oil companies have the natural skills and resources for it.
The offshore wind supply chain is just not robust enough yet. Increasing demand, interest and investment in wind will make resources even scarcer. There is a bit of a chicken and egg game going on between the resource suppliers and the companies. They know they want them but they don?t want to have to pay for them now as the financing difficulties make the process uncertain. There isn?t a lot of money to invest ahead of the game but companies are equally nervous that if they wait a year they will be at the back of the queue.
In March, Wind Energy Update is hosting the Offshore Wind Energy Supply Chain Conference. The leading Developers and OEMs are represented at the conference to establish an industry blueprint of what it takes to succeed as a trusted supplier in the European Offshore wind energy industry.
Head of Procurement - Offshore - RWE Innogy
Director - Head of Technology and Procurement - Vattenfall Wind Power
Managing Director, Offshore - GAMESA
Offshore Product Deployment Manager - GE Wind Energy
Managing Director - Beluga Offshore
Learn to develop deeper relationships with long term suppliers, how to cope with order fluctuations and demands for greater manufacturing flexibility and reduce your risks with carefully selected strategic partnerships.�Find out more on this event at http://www.windenergyupdate.com/offshorewindsupplychain/
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators
There is a serious limitation in terms of specialised providers across the supply chain in offshore wind. Whether it?s cables, turbines, skilled workers, ports or logistics it is a nascent industry that is in the process of specialisation. There are bottlenecks that need to be overcome in just about every part of the supply chain.
Other sectors such as coal, gas or nuclear have an existing pool of suppliers who can provide services on a turnkey basis. In wind however, the utilities are discovering that they need to do a bit more on their own balance sheet.
There is growing interest being shown in wind by oil service firms. Before wind was seen as a distraction but now it is a much more interesting business. Oil companies have the natural skills and resources for it.
The offshore wind supply chain is just not robust enough yet. Increasing demand, interest and investment in wind will make resources even scarcer. There is a bit of a chicken and egg game going on between the resource suppliers and the companies. They know they want them but they don?t want to have to pay for them now as the financing difficulties make the process uncertain. There isn?t a lot of money to invest ahead of the game but companies are equally nervous that if they wait a year they will be at the back of the queue.
In March, Wind Energy Update is hosting the Offshore Wind Energy Supply Chain Conference. The leading Developers and OEMs are represented at the conference to establish an industry blueprint of what it takes to succeed as a trusted supplier in the European Offshore wind energy industry.
Head of Procurement - Offshore - RWE Innogy
Director - Head of Technology and Procurement - Vattenfall Wind Power
Managing Director, Offshore - GAMESA
Offshore Product Deployment Manager - GE Wind Energy
Managing Director - Beluga Offshore
Learn to develop deeper relationships with long term suppliers, how to cope with order fluctuations and demands for greater manufacturing flexibility and reduce your risks with carefully selected strategic partnerships.�Find out more on this event at http://www.windenergyupdate.com/offshorewindsupplychain/
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators
Alternative Energy News Feed - EnergyRefuge.com
Sorry, readability was unable to parse this page for content.Free Energy Generator
Magnetic Energy Generator
Magnetic Generators
Free Energy Home
Home Power Generator
New Bedford Closing In On Solar Deal
Libra
The changing Moon enters intense Scorpio and your second house of personal finances, reminding you to watch your budget. With indulgent Neptune in your fifth house of pleasure for some time to come, you may have a hard time saving money. Financial risks you take during the next two days or so are ill-advised: wait for a better time.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator
The changing Moon enters intense Scorpio and your second house of personal finances, reminding you to watch your budget. With indulgent Neptune in your fifth house of pleasure for some time to come, you may have a hard time saving money. Financial risks you take during the next two days or so are ill-advised: wait for a better time.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator
The Peak Oil Catastrophe-in-waiting
Peak oil is the point at which global oil production reaches a maximum and then declines. The speed of the decline is a key unknown and if it is relatively fast, the results could be truly dire for economies around the world.�
We saw prices as high as $147 a barrel in mid-2008 (the dominant factor for gasoline prices well over $4 a gallon), which played a strong role, perhaps the dominant role, in the global Great Recession -- as high oil prices have in most recessions over the last fifty years. Once the recession hit, oil demand dropped and prices plummeted as low as $33 a barrel.
Prices steadily recovered since their low in early 2009 and are back to dangerous levels in early 2011 (about $90 a barrel). We can expect far higher prices as the global recovery continues. An increasing number of analysts are projecting prices as high or higher than the 2008 peak in the next couple of years.
More importantly, global net exports of oil continue to drop as major oil exporters increase their own consumption at the same time as their production is stagnant or falling. As a major oil-importing nation (about 2/3 of our oil is imported, by far the largest import dependency in the world), net oil exports are far more important to the U.S. than total oil production. Even if global oil production increases in the coming years, if there is less available for oil-thirsty nations like ours the situation will be far worse than total oil production figures would otherwise suggest. More on this below.
It is time for public discussion of this issue to reach the same prominence as climate change. Indeed, many solutions to these ?twin crises? are the same because reducing petroleum dependence will ameliorate peak oil and climate change.
This article is an update on the peak oil situation at the beginning of 2011 and a follow-up to my many previous pieces on peak oil (one with Nobel Prize winner Walter Kohn). First, some facts.
Global oil production has plateaued since 2004, despite the fact that oil prices have risen dramatically. Figure 1 shows this history, demonstrating that oil production has not been very response to market forces, suggesting strongly that we are at a global peak.
Figure 1. Global oil production and oil price 2004-2010. (Source: EIA, chart courtesy of www.TheOilDrum.com).
Bloomberg reported a summary of oil price forecasts for 2011, selecting for their summary those forecasters who have the most accurate track records. The dominant view was that average oil prices will rise almost as high in 2011 as seen in 2008 ? to $87 a barrel for the year as a whole (the average price for 2008 was $99). It?s likely, however, that the actual average 2011 price will be significantly higher because we are already over this price at about $90 a barrel in early January and the large majority of economic forecasts project a robust global recovery this year, with attendant increases in oil demand.
More anecdotally, but with perhaps more impact because of its source, Shell?s recent ex-president John Hofmeister predicts $5 gas by 2012 due to the global economic recovery and very tight supply.
A number of comprehensive reviews of the global oil supply situation have appeared in the last year.
Lloyds and Chatham House: ?We are heading towards a global oil supply crunch and price spike.? ?A supply crunch appears likely around 2013? given recent price experience, a spike in excess of $200 per barrel is not infeasible.?
The U.S. Department of Defense issued a stark warning in its 2010 Joint Operating Environment (JOE) report, including discussion of ?peak oil?: "By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day.?
Similarly, the German military is taking peak oil very seriously, made clear by a report leaked to Der Spiegel in 2010: ?[The report] warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the ?total collapse of the markets? and of serious political and economic crises.?
The same article reports on secret British government planning for peak oil: ?The leak has parallels with recent reports from the UK. Only last week the Guardian newspaper reported that the British Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is keeping documents secret which show the UK government is far more concerned about an impending supply crisis than it cares to admit. According to the Guardian, the DECC, the Bank of England and the British Ministry of Defence are working alongside industry representatives to develop a crisis plan to deal with possible shortfalls in energy supply.?
The UK?s Industry Task Force on Peak Oil and Energy Security (a non-governmental group) issued its second major report on peak oil in late 2010, concluding: ?[W]e face a situation during the [next few years] where fuel price unrest could lead to shortages in consumer products and the UK?s energy security will be significantly compromised. This has the potential to hit UK business and commerce as well as the most disadvantaged in society with yet another crisis.?
In August of 2009, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the official energy watchdog for the western world, was even more strident in its warnings. The UK?s Independent newspaper reported:
The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.
Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.
Later in 2009, two IEA whistleblowers went public and claimed that the situation was even worse than the IEA was stating publicly. The UK?s Guardian newspaper reported in November of 2009: ?A ? senior IEA source, who has now left but was ? unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organization was that it was ?imperative not to anger the Americans? but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as has been admitted. ?We have (already) entered the ?peak oil? zone. I think that the situation is really bad,? he added.?
IEA has changed its public tune yet again, however. IEA?s 2010 World Energy Outlook (WEO), a major forecast released each year, apparently ignored the IEA?s own previous analysis by reverting to its previous policy of simply assuming ? literally ? that projected petroleum demand will be met with the needed supply. IEA states in WEO 2010: ?Energy prices ensure that projected supply and demand are in balance throughout the Outlook period in each scenario?.?� In other words, IEA simply assumes that supply will meet demand due to market forces. This is obviously true at a very basic level: supply will always match demand if we define demand as that which is actually consumed. But if we define demand instead as the desired oil consumption, all else being equal, we reach a very different conclusion ? far more in line with the US JOE report that projects a possible 10 million barrel per day shortfall by 2015.
WEO 2010 does, however, include some discussion of peak oil and it projects that the 2006 peak in global conventional oil production will never be exceeded (p. 8 of the Exec. Summary). That is, IEA has officially concluded that 2006 was the annual peak for conventional oil production. We are, accordingly, past the point of peak oil if we define this term to include only conventional oil.
Even based on official IEA projections (which are likely far too rosy considering the whistleblower claims), we have a major problem facing us, made clear by the chart below. The key point from this chart is that IEA thinks we?ve already passed the peak for global conventional oil production, as just mentioned. As a consequence, a huge amount of new oil must be found to replace declining conventional oil production ? a deficit of about 75 million barrels per day by 2035. This is equivalent to nine new Saudi Arabias coming online by 2035 (Saudi Arabia currently produces about 8 million barrels per day).
IEA projects (Figure 2) that this new oil will come from a combination of new conventional oil production, from known fields yet to be developed and fields not even found yet; from natural gas liquids; and from unconventional oil like tar sands and oil shale.
Figure 2. IEA projections for oil supply through 2035 (Source: IEA WEO 2010.)
For those who worry about national security and energy dependence, the report offers an even more worrying conclusion: the large majority of new oil will come from OPEC nations, with only Brazil, Canada and Kazakhstan as non-OPEC nations projected to have significant new production (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Sources of new oil by 2035 (Source: IEA WEO 2010).
We must keep in mind, however, that these new production figures don?t take into account the growing petroleum demand in these producing nations. The key issue, from a U.S. national security and energy dependence perspective, is not oil production itself but ?net oil exports.? The public version of the 2010 WEO does not discuss net oil exports, but private analysts Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher have produced forecasts of net oil exports, concluding that the top five oil exporters will have literally zero oil for export by 2030. Even if, for some reason, their model is substantially off the mark (it?s not been peer-reviewed, to my knowledge), we must consider the net export issue in our analysis because any analysis that ignores rapidly growing consumption in oil-producing nations will be highly inaccurate.
Figure 4. Brown and Foucher?s 2008 projections for top five oil exporting nations? net oil exports by 2030, in millions of barrels per day (mbpd).
It?s not all bad, however. A more encouraging forecast from the IEA report can be found in their cost savings projections. They conclude that the ?new policies scenario? (what used to be called the ?reference scenario,? which codifies existing policies) and the 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent scenario (which codifies new policies required to prevent atmospheric emissions from reaching this level) result in very substantial net cost savings on a global basis and, in particular, for oil importing nations. This is the case because fossil fuel demand is dramatically reduced in these scenarios. This reduction in demand lowers both average prices for fossil fuels and the amount of fossil fuel that needs to be purchased.
Figure 5. Oil-import bills as share of gross domestic product in selected countries (Source: IEA WEO 2010).
It is time to get very serious about managing a reduction in petroleum demand in the U.S. and around the world. I write ?managing? because it is my view that this reduction in demand will happen whether we want it to or not due to declining oil supplies. The question, then, is how we best manage this decline. A high quality analysis of the possible scenarios for an oil-constrained world, by Oxford University professor J�rg Friedrichs, appeared in 2010. Friedrichs examines three possible trajectories: ?Predatory militarism,? ?totalitarian retrenchment,? and ?socioeconomic adaptation.?
At least two rigorous policy solutions have been offered in recent years. The Rocky Mountain Institute completed Winning the Oil Endgame in 2007, suggesting a suite of policy and technology solutions that can get the U.S. off oil, ?led by business for profit.? Richard Heinberg offered his own book-length solution, The Oil Depletion Protocol, in 2008, suggesting how the U.S. and other nations could manage declining oil supplies by achieving a three percent per year reduction in demand through various policies.
As we continue a global economic recovery in 2011, higher oil prices are inevitable, super price spikes are a strong possibility, and even shortages are not out of the question. We must ask ourselves: should we manage the decline in a way that avoids economic catastrophe or do we continue our generally laissez faire attitude toward this major problem?
Tam Hunt is president of Community Renewable Solutions, LLC, a renewable energy consulting and project development company. He is also a Lecturer in climate change law and policy at UC Santa Barbara?s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. His blog, Thought, Spirit, Politik, is at www.tamhunt.blogspot.com.�
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources
We saw prices as high as $147 a barrel in mid-2008 (the dominant factor for gasoline prices well over $4 a gallon), which played a strong role, perhaps the dominant role, in the global Great Recession -- as high oil prices have in most recessions over the last fifty years. Once the recession hit, oil demand dropped and prices plummeted as low as $33 a barrel.
Prices steadily recovered since their low in early 2009 and are back to dangerous levels in early 2011 (about $90 a barrel). We can expect far higher prices as the global recovery continues. An increasing number of analysts are projecting prices as high or higher than the 2008 peak in the next couple of years.
More importantly, global net exports of oil continue to drop as major oil exporters increase their own consumption at the same time as their production is stagnant or falling. As a major oil-importing nation (about 2/3 of our oil is imported, by far the largest import dependency in the world), net oil exports are far more important to the U.S. than total oil production. Even if global oil production increases in the coming years, if there is less available for oil-thirsty nations like ours the situation will be far worse than total oil production figures would otherwise suggest. More on this below.
It is time for public discussion of this issue to reach the same prominence as climate change. Indeed, many solutions to these ?twin crises? are the same because reducing petroleum dependence will ameliorate peak oil and climate change.
This article is an update on the peak oil situation at the beginning of 2011 and a follow-up to my many previous pieces on peak oil (one with Nobel Prize winner Walter Kohn). First, some facts.
Global oil production has plateaued since 2004, despite the fact that oil prices have risen dramatically. Figure 1 shows this history, demonstrating that oil production has not been very response to market forces, suggesting strongly that we are at a global peak.
Figure 1. Global oil production and oil price 2004-2010. (Source: EIA, chart courtesy of www.TheOilDrum.com).
Bloomberg reported a summary of oil price forecasts for 2011, selecting for their summary those forecasters who have the most accurate track records. The dominant view was that average oil prices will rise almost as high in 2011 as seen in 2008 ? to $87 a barrel for the year as a whole (the average price for 2008 was $99). It?s likely, however, that the actual average 2011 price will be significantly higher because we are already over this price at about $90 a barrel in early January and the large majority of economic forecasts project a robust global recovery this year, with attendant increases in oil demand.
More anecdotally, but with perhaps more impact because of its source, Shell?s recent ex-president John Hofmeister predicts $5 gas by 2012 due to the global economic recovery and very tight supply.
A number of comprehensive reviews of the global oil supply situation have appeared in the last year.
Lloyds and Chatham House: ?We are heading towards a global oil supply crunch and price spike.? ?A supply crunch appears likely around 2013? given recent price experience, a spike in excess of $200 per barrel is not infeasible.?
The U.S. Department of Defense issued a stark warning in its 2010 Joint Operating Environment (JOE) report, including discussion of ?peak oil?: "By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day.?
Similarly, the German military is taking peak oil very seriously, made clear by a report leaked to Der Spiegel in 2010: ?[The report] warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the ?total collapse of the markets? and of serious political and economic crises.?
The same article reports on secret British government planning for peak oil: ?The leak has parallels with recent reports from the UK. Only last week the Guardian newspaper reported that the British Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is keeping documents secret which show the UK government is far more concerned about an impending supply crisis than it cares to admit. According to the Guardian, the DECC, the Bank of England and the British Ministry of Defence are working alongside industry representatives to develop a crisis plan to deal with possible shortfalls in energy supply.?
The UK?s Industry Task Force on Peak Oil and Energy Security (a non-governmental group) issued its second major report on peak oil in late 2010, concluding: ?[W]e face a situation during the [next few years] where fuel price unrest could lead to shortages in consumer products and the UK?s energy security will be significantly compromised. This has the potential to hit UK business and commerce as well as the most disadvantaged in society with yet another crisis.?
In August of 2009, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the official energy watchdog for the western world, was even more strident in its warnings. The UK?s Independent newspaper reported:
The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.
Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.
Later in 2009, two IEA whistleblowers went public and claimed that the situation was even worse than the IEA was stating publicly. The UK?s Guardian newspaper reported in November of 2009: ?A ? senior IEA source, who has now left but was ? unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organization was that it was ?imperative not to anger the Americans? but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as has been admitted. ?We have (already) entered the ?peak oil? zone. I think that the situation is really bad,? he added.?
IEA has changed its public tune yet again, however. IEA?s 2010 World Energy Outlook (WEO), a major forecast released each year, apparently ignored the IEA?s own previous analysis by reverting to its previous policy of simply assuming ? literally ? that projected petroleum demand will be met with the needed supply. IEA states in WEO 2010: ?Energy prices ensure that projected supply and demand are in balance throughout the Outlook period in each scenario?.?� In other words, IEA simply assumes that supply will meet demand due to market forces. This is obviously true at a very basic level: supply will always match demand if we define demand as that which is actually consumed. But if we define demand instead as the desired oil consumption, all else being equal, we reach a very different conclusion ? far more in line with the US JOE report that projects a possible 10 million barrel per day shortfall by 2015.
WEO 2010 does, however, include some discussion of peak oil and it projects that the 2006 peak in global conventional oil production will never be exceeded (p. 8 of the Exec. Summary). That is, IEA has officially concluded that 2006 was the annual peak for conventional oil production. We are, accordingly, past the point of peak oil if we define this term to include only conventional oil.
Even based on official IEA projections (which are likely far too rosy considering the whistleblower claims), we have a major problem facing us, made clear by the chart below. The key point from this chart is that IEA thinks we?ve already passed the peak for global conventional oil production, as just mentioned. As a consequence, a huge amount of new oil must be found to replace declining conventional oil production ? a deficit of about 75 million barrels per day by 2035. This is equivalent to nine new Saudi Arabias coming online by 2035 (Saudi Arabia currently produces about 8 million barrels per day).
IEA projects (Figure 2) that this new oil will come from a combination of new conventional oil production, from known fields yet to be developed and fields not even found yet; from natural gas liquids; and from unconventional oil like tar sands and oil shale.
Figure 2. IEA projections for oil supply through 2035 (Source: IEA WEO 2010.)
For those who worry about national security and energy dependence, the report offers an even more worrying conclusion: the large majority of new oil will come from OPEC nations, with only Brazil, Canada and Kazakhstan as non-OPEC nations projected to have significant new production (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Sources of new oil by 2035 (Source: IEA WEO 2010).
We must keep in mind, however, that these new production figures don?t take into account the growing petroleum demand in these producing nations. The key issue, from a U.S. national security and energy dependence perspective, is not oil production itself but ?net oil exports.? The public version of the 2010 WEO does not discuss net oil exports, but private analysts Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher have produced forecasts of net oil exports, concluding that the top five oil exporters will have literally zero oil for export by 2030. Even if, for some reason, their model is substantially off the mark (it?s not been peer-reviewed, to my knowledge), we must consider the net export issue in our analysis because any analysis that ignores rapidly growing consumption in oil-producing nations will be highly inaccurate.
Figure 4. Brown and Foucher?s 2008 projections for top five oil exporting nations? net oil exports by 2030, in millions of barrels per day (mbpd).
It?s not all bad, however. A more encouraging forecast from the IEA report can be found in their cost savings projections. They conclude that the ?new policies scenario? (what used to be called the ?reference scenario,? which codifies existing policies) and the 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent scenario (which codifies new policies required to prevent atmospheric emissions from reaching this level) result in very substantial net cost savings on a global basis and, in particular, for oil importing nations. This is the case because fossil fuel demand is dramatically reduced in these scenarios. This reduction in demand lowers both average prices for fossil fuels and the amount of fossil fuel that needs to be purchased.
Figure 5. Oil-import bills as share of gross domestic product in selected countries (Source: IEA WEO 2010).
It is time to get very serious about managing a reduction in petroleum demand in the U.S. and around the world. I write ?managing? because it is my view that this reduction in demand will happen whether we want it to or not due to declining oil supplies. The question, then, is how we best manage this decline. A high quality analysis of the possible scenarios for an oil-constrained world, by Oxford University professor J�rg Friedrichs, appeared in 2010. Friedrichs examines three possible trajectories: ?Predatory militarism,? ?totalitarian retrenchment,? and ?socioeconomic adaptation.?
At least two rigorous policy solutions have been offered in recent years. The Rocky Mountain Institute completed Winning the Oil Endgame in 2007, suggesting a suite of policy and technology solutions that can get the U.S. off oil, ?led by business for profit.? Richard Heinberg offered his own book-length solution, The Oil Depletion Protocol, in 2008, suggesting how the U.S. and other nations could manage declining oil supplies by achieving a three percent per year reduction in demand through various policies.
As we continue a global economic recovery in 2011, higher oil prices are inevitable, super price spikes are a strong possibility, and even shortages are not out of the question. We must ask ourselves: should we manage the decline in a way that avoids economic catastrophe or do we continue our generally laissez faire attitude toward this major problem?
Tam Hunt is president of Community Renewable Solutions, LLC, a renewable energy consulting and project development company. He is also a Lecturer in climate change law and policy at UC Santa Barbara?s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. His blog, Thought, Spirit, Politik, is at www.tamhunt.blogspot.com.�
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources
Saturday, July 30, 2011
BOEMRE, N Carolina Offshore Renewable Energy Task Force
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) held its first offshore renewable energy task force meeting in cooperation with North Carolina?s Department of Commerce. This intergovernmental task force was established to facilitate communication between BOEMRE and state, local, tribal and federal stakeholders concerning commercial renewable energy leasing and development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the coast of North Carolina. The task force includes state government officials designated by Governor Bev Perdue, officials from affected federal agencies, elected local government officials, and tribal leaders.�
?BOEMRE created this task force to facilitate the effective and efficient review of proposed renewable energy projects on the OCS offshore North Carolina,? said BOEMRE Director Michael R. Bromwich. ?We will work together with the state to enable North Carolina to develop renewable energy off its coast, thereby expanding our nation?s energy resource portfolio.?��
?North Carolina appreciates the cooperation of the Bureau and this opportunity for this good start in developing the policies and procedures to expand the state?s renewable energy resources in ways that are compatible with the lives and livelihoods of those who make the coast their home and depend upon it for their livelihood,? said Jennifer Bumgarner, North Carolina Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Energy.
Interior Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Ned Farquhar delivered opening remarks at today's task force meeting. The meeting featured a discussion about the commercial leasing process for OCS renewable energy and a presentation of the draft task force charter. The task force members discussed options for starting the leasing process and the procedure for specific actions required by BOEMRE and the state for developing offshore renewable energy.��
In April 2009, President Barack Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the final framework for renewable energy development on the OCS. This framework establishes the process BOEMRE uses for granting leases, easements, and rights-of-way for offshore renewable energy development activities, such as the siting and construction of wind generation facilities on the OCS. The framework also allows BOEMRE to use task forces in carrying out its responsibilities for authorizing OCS renewable energy activities in partnership with state, local, and tribal governments, and federal agencies. As part of the ?Smart from the Start? wind initiative announced by Secretary Salazar in the fall of 2010 to facilitate offshore wind development, this task force will help identify priority areas on the OCS that have generally bountiful wind energy and relatively fewer potential environmental and use conflicts than other areas offshore North Carolina. BOEMRE will use that information to identify wind energy areas along the OCS that may be particularly suitable for potential offshore wind development.
Task forces have previously been established with Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina and New York, and are in process for South Carolina and Florida.Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy
?BOEMRE created this task force to facilitate the effective and efficient review of proposed renewable energy projects on the OCS offshore North Carolina,? said BOEMRE Director Michael R. Bromwich. ?We will work together with the state to enable North Carolina to develop renewable energy off its coast, thereby expanding our nation?s energy resource portfolio.?��
?North Carolina appreciates the cooperation of the Bureau and this opportunity for this good start in developing the policies and procedures to expand the state?s renewable energy resources in ways that are compatible with the lives and livelihoods of those who make the coast their home and depend upon it for their livelihood,? said Jennifer Bumgarner, North Carolina Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Energy.
Interior Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Ned Farquhar delivered opening remarks at today's task force meeting. The meeting featured a discussion about the commercial leasing process for OCS renewable energy and a presentation of the draft task force charter. The task force members discussed options for starting the leasing process and the procedure for specific actions required by BOEMRE and the state for developing offshore renewable energy.��
In April 2009, President Barack Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the final framework for renewable energy development on the OCS. This framework establishes the process BOEMRE uses for granting leases, easements, and rights-of-way for offshore renewable energy development activities, such as the siting and construction of wind generation facilities on the OCS. The framework also allows BOEMRE to use task forces in carrying out its responsibilities for authorizing OCS renewable energy activities in partnership with state, local, and tribal governments, and federal agencies. As part of the ?Smart from the Start? wind initiative announced by Secretary Salazar in the fall of 2010 to facilitate offshore wind development, this task force will help identify priority areas on the OCS that have generally bountiful wind energy and relatively fewer potential environmental and use conflicts than other areas offshore North Carolina. BOEMRE will use that information to identify wind energy areas along the OCS that may be particularly suitable for potential offshore wind development.
Task forces have previously been established with Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina and New York, and are in process for South Carolina and Florida.Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy
Fertile inquiries: A very basic primer on creating and maintaining soil fertility
Gardeners like to compete with each other over who has the worst soil. You wouldn't think we'd be proud of this, but what can I say, we're a strange bunch. One will argue for his hard clay, baked in the sun, another for her sand, without a trace of organic matter. I've got my own candidate for the worst soil ever - the stuff in the beds around my house.
Oh, texturally, it is among the best I've got - sandy loam, warms up nicely, isn't too wet like much of the rest of my soil. It had some nice enough foundation plantings, and I mostly ignored it for the first few years I was here. But a couple of years ago, I decided that I wanted to make use of this growing space, and then I discovered that my soil, was, well...dead.
By dead, I mean there wasn't a living thing in it. Not a beetle or a spider, and especially not an earthworm. It was weird. I knew that some previous owners of our house were umm... shiny green lawn people, and I don't know if that has something to do with it, but this stuff was "Its dead, Jim" dead.
So we embarked on a campaign of soil improvement. Any kind of soil improvement has two parts. First, there's getting your soil up to speed. In some cases, this might not be much - maybe some ashes from your stove or a little lime to even out some acidity, or maybe a little rock powder for trace minerals, or a light dressing of the rabbit poop your rabbits make sure you get anyway. If your soil is basically in good shape - you've had a soil test and you know that it is high in organic matter and sufficient in macro and micronutrients.
But what if it isn't? What if you've got dead soil, like mine, or rock hard clay, or soil (also like mine) that has been leached of nutrients? Again, there are two projects here - the first is the short term building of soil so that you can get to gardening. The second is the long term maintenence of soil health, and the addition of more organic matter, so that eventually, your soil can hold enough organic matter to save the world - or at least sequester a bit of carbon. Plus, things will grow better. Win-win.
My favorite way to build soil on something that is completely unworkable is the lasagna method, which is pretty much sheet mulching (covering the soil with newspaper or cardboard, then laying on as much organic material as you've got, with some dirt or compost on it. This makes raised beds, which is good if what you have is either wet or rock hard, or if you are, say putting your dirt on gravel or something toxic. It might be tough in a dry, hot climate though - raised beds dry out and warm up in the spring earlier, and keeping them wet might be tough. In that case, you might consider digging into the ground, creating sunken beds with the same mixture. We use leaves, grass clippings and farm bedding as the main ingredients in our lasagna beds, with a layer of find compost on top if I'm starting seeds in it.
If you need to amend soil, you'll have the choice of synthetic or natural soil amendments. Generally speaking, you'll want the natural ones. I'm not a complete organic purist - I think there are times when artificial fertilizer use is justified. But there's a price to be paid for its use, and care is needed - otherwise you can end up contaminating your water supply, wasting your money and depleting your soil overall. I don't generally use synthetic fertilizers, and if I were to use them, I'd use them only on untilled soil with plenty of organic matter added, in small and precise quantities. Most of the value of artificial fertilizers is presently lost into waterways and various other sites of contamination.
You can buy an organic fertilizer mix, or you can make your own. I generally use a mix of alfalfa meal, rock phosphate, and wood ashes, along with greensand and kelp, as well as occasionally special additions to deal with soil types or plant special needs. But I don't know about you, but I can't mine rock phosphate from my property, nor do I produce enough alfalfa to fertilize my garden. So this is not a long-term sustainable project. I use these amendments sparingly, where they are needed to bring soils up to basic fertility.
Then, we try to keep the fertility there. That means cover cropping a portion of our garden every year, integrating dynamic accumulator plants into our plantings (these are plants that bring up nutrients from the subsoil), undercropping with nitrogen fixers (these plants fix nitrogen from the air), mulching (we try to grow as much of our own mulch as possible in place - another good use for undercropping - a nice planting of buckwheat under tomatoes, or white clover under garlic can provide a living mulch and then the next planting cycle's mulching materials), and the heavy application of organic material - that is, compost and composted animal manures.
Every time we take something off of the soil, we are removing nutrients from our soil, and depleting, to some degree, the organic material available to them. High levels of organic material are essential for soil life and health - so faced with dead soil, the first thing I did was put my turkey poults in a chicken tractor on top of the border for a few days. The easiest way to move the poop to the garden beds is sometimes to move the poop makers there . Now since this was raw manure, I made sure there was plenty of bedding, and I wasn't planting food plants there right away. Had I needed to use it immediately, I would have switched to already composted manure, and gotten out the wheelbarrow.
Next, I planted the foundation plantings to annual alfalfa, since it was already summer, and warm. Different cover crops are specific to different seasons - they are spring, summer or fall sown. You sow the fall crops to overwinter - to hold soil in place, and add organic material. Winter rye, hairy vetch, fava beans (in some climates) are all common winter sown cover crops. Spring sown crops are generally cut down in summer, and either stay in place all season (things like red clover), providing multiple doses of fertility and green material, or they are cut down (oats, say) to provide organic material for the fall garden. Summer crops (buckwheat, annual alfalfa) can go in after the peas or the early lettuce, and grow fast and fill the space until fall. For a site you don't plan to get to for a year or two, perennial crops can do a lot to regenerate soil.
Cover cropping is very place specific - the best crops are specific to your climate, seasons and locality, so talk to your cooperative extension. They are a powerful tool for building fertility, adding organic matter and improving soil, and one that is worth getting to know.
My goal in the long term is for these beds to provide a warm, dry, moderately fertile site for mediterranean herbs and a few flowering perennials. That is, I wasn't trying to produce fertility for growing heavy feeders, like greens or corn. So after the alfalfa, I added some greensand and kelp, a light layer of compost, and planted into the mulch I'd already established. In went lavender, oregano, several marjorams and thymes, a rosemary that probably didn't survive the winter this year, and some plants that like or tolerate similar conditions of slightly dry soil, lots of sun and only moderate fertility - catmint, echinops and malva. And they've thrived.
Many perennial plants make wonderful fertility enhancers to annual gardens - whether perennial nitrogen fixing shrubs, whose leaf litter and root nodes enhance the trees and perennial plantings around them, comfrey and stinging nettle which can be cut for mulch or compost, small trees integrated into garden sites to provide leaf mulch, or perennial living mulches. This is one of those things that has potentially enormous long term yields, and has really only begun to be explored in a deep way.
The best soils for sequestering organic matter will be those that are in perennial plantings, that have constant inputs of organic matter - these include forests that are enriched yearly by leaf drops, permanent pastures which are manured by grazing animals (It has been calculated that Joel Salatin's grazed pastures sequester as much carbon as a similarly sized forest after decades of grazing), and perennial gardens that are carefully managed to provide their own needs.
I maintain fertility in the perennial planting I established in these beds by the occasional dumping of animal bedding on the ground, permanent mulch, wood ashes from our stove, and a strewing of kelp. I've also grown an annual crop of chamomile, a good dynamic accumulator, and left everything but the flowerheads in place. I give the whole thing an occasional boost of nitrogen by dumping dilute urine over it - urine is safe unless you have tularemia (in which case you have worse problems than not being able to fertilize with your pee) and diluted 1-7 (1-10 if you don't drink enough), it provides a real boost to plants. To be paranoid stop doing so 10 days before harvest.
More demanding annual feeders get composted chicken or goat manure, plant compost, weed and manure teas. Other plants might also get living mulches, and I rotate plants as wisely and carefully as I can, following the heavy feeders with nitrogen fixers or light feeders undersown with nitrogen fixing cover crops. My whole garden gets rotating quantities of worm casting to supplement the soil and improve its texture.
Meanwhile, in maintaining, we try to put back what we take off. Crop residues are left in place, either chopped down and incorporated into the permanent mulch or they are burned in our woodstove (for heavy, dense stalks) and returned as ash. Some of the nitrogen is returned in the form of urine. We mulch as much as possible with our own mulches - grass clippings, leaves and plants grown for compost or as mulch plants. We try not to steal too much from any one other place - but we gratefuly take things people discard, like leaves from yards when we venture into suburbia, or horse manure from our horse-keeping neighbors.
Animal manures have a very powerful role in gardening - in a perfect world, we'd compost all human manures until they were thoroughly pathogen free, and restore the soil with what we take off. But whether this is safe is debatable, and anyone who shares food will not want to risk a lawsuit. So composted animals manures are a powerful tool for maintaining fertility - one of the reasons that polycultures of animals and plants are generally more effective than either alone. We use composted human manures only on decorative and tree plantings.
Two particular ways of maintaining fertility deserve mention here - fungal soil support, by mycorrhizae (tiny fungus that colonize the soil) and biochar. Mycorrhizae have a symbiotic relationship with the roots of many plants, and can enhance the ability to plants to uptake nutrients and deal with water stress among other things. Many soils are fungi deficient, and an application of mycorrhizae can improve your plants ability to absorb the nutrients in your soil.
Biochar/Terra Preta is a fascinating subject - and one still uncertain. Terra Preta involves adding plant based charcoal (ie, not the briquets at the grocery store) to your soil. What this does is still a matter of speculation - it isn't clear, for example, whether the charcoal itself or the organic processes it enables are actually what creates the rich soil involved. Nor is it clear that all soils respond equally well to terra preta inputs - for example a study found that boreal forest soils did not seem to respond to biochar applications. That said, however, there have been some fascinating results - biochar supplemented soils seem to stimulate nitrogen fixing in legumes, for example, and while charcoal supplemented soils enable plants to take up more minerals, the soils deplete more slowly. This is a project still in the exploration stages, but one that home gardeners and small farmers can contribute to with experimentation.
We're not a closed circle by any means - we still take advantage, as long as they are available and we can afford them, of valuable amendments. But the idea is to lose as little as possible, while getting the best possible balance between improved soil, the health of the world, and a system in which you need to bring in a little less from offsite each year. This, it seems, is an entirely achievable goal.
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy
Oh, texturally, it is among the best I've got - sandy loam, warms up nicely, isn't too wet like much of the rest of my soil. It had some nice enough foundation plantings, and I mostly ignored it for the first few years I was here. But a couple of years ago, I decided that I wanted to make use of this growing space, and then I discovered that my soil, was, well...dead.
By dead, I mean there wasn't a living thing in it. Not a beetle or a spider, and especially not an earthworm. It was weird. I knew that some previous owners of our house were umm... shiny green lawn people, and I don't know if that has something to do with it, but this stuff was "Its dead, Jim" dead.
So we embarked on a campaign of soil improvement. Any kind of soil improvement has two parts. First, there's getting your soil up to speed. In some cases, this might not be much - maybe some ashes from your stove or a little lime to even out some acidity, or maybe a little rock powder for trace minerals, or a light dressing of the rabbit poop your rabbits make sure you get anyway. If your soil is basically in good shape - you've had a soil test and you know that it is high in organic matter and sufficient in macro and micronutrients.
But what if it isn't? What if you've got dead soil, like mine, or rock hard clay, or soil (also like mine) that has been leached of nutrients? Again, there are two projects here - the first is the short term building of soil so that you can get to gardening. The second is the long term maintenence of soil health, and the addition of more organic matter, so that eventually, your soil can hold enough organic matter to save the world - or at least sequester a bit of carbon. Plus, things will grow better. Win-win.
My favorite way to build soil on something that is completely unworkable is the lasagna method, which is pretty much sheet mulching (covering the soil with newspaper or cardboard, then laying on as much organic material as you've got, with some dirt or compost on it. This makes raised beds, which is good if what you have is either wet or rock hard, or if you are, say putting your dirt on gravel or something toxic. It might be tough in a dry, hot climate though - raised beds dry out and warm up in the spring earlier, and keeping them wet might be tough. In that case, you might consider digging into the ground, creating sunken beds with the same mixture. We use leaves, grass clippings and farm bedding as the main ingredients in our lasagna beds, with a layer of find compost on top if I'm starting seeds in it.
If you need to amend soil, you'll have the choice of synthetic or natural soil amendments. Generally speaking, you'll want the natural ones. I'm not a complete organic purist - I think there are times when artificial fertilizer use is justified. But there's a price to be paid for its use, and care is needed - otherwise you can end up contaminating your water supply, wasting your money and depleting your soil overall. I don't generally use synthetic fertilizers, and if I were to use them, I'd use them only on untilled soil with plenty of organic matter added, in small and precise quantities. Most of the value of artificial fertilizers is presently lost into waterways and various other sites of contamination.
You can buy an organic fertilizer mix, or you can make your own. I generally use a mix of alfalfa meal, rock phosphate, and wood ashes, along with greensand and kelp, as well as occasionally special additions to deal with soil types or plant special needs. But I don't know about you, but I can't mine rock phosphate from my property, nor do I produce enough alfalfa to fertilize my garden. So this is not a long-term sustainable project. I use these amendments sparingly, where they are needed to bring soils up to basic fertility.
Then, we try to keep the fertility there. That means cover cropping a portion of our garden every year, integrating dynamic accumulator plants into our plantings (these are plants that bring up nutrients from the subsoil), undercropping with nitrogen fixers (these plants fix nitrogen from the air), mulching (we try to grow as much of our own mulch as possible in place - another good use for undercropping - a nice planting of buckwheat under tomatoes, or white clover under garlic can provide a living mulch and then the next planting cycle's mulching materials), and the heavy application of organic material - that is, compost and composted animal manures.
Every time we take something off of the soil, we are removing nutrients from our soil, and depleting, to some degree, the organic material available to them. High levels of organic material are essential for soil life and health - so faced with dead soil, the first thing I did was put my turkey poults in a chicken tractor on top of the border for a few days. The easiest way to move the poop to the garden beds is sometimes to move the poop makers there . Now since this was raw manure, I made sure there was plenty of bedding, and I wasn't planting food plants there right away. Had I needed to use it immediately, I would have switched to already composted manure, and gotten out the wheelbarrow.
Next, I planted the foundation plantings to annual alfalfa, since it was already summer, and warm. Different cover crops are specific to different seasons - they are spring, summer or fall sown. You sow the fall crops to overwinter - to hold soil in place, and add organic material. Winter rye, hairy vetch, fava beans (in some climates) are all common winter sown cover crops. Spring sown crops are generally cut down in summer, and either stay in place all season (things like red clover), providing multiple doses of fertility and green material, or they are cut down (oats, say) to provide organic material for the fall garden. Summer crops (buckwheat, annual alfalfa) can go in after the peas or the early lettuce, and grow fast and fill the space until fall. For a site you don't plan to get to for a year or two, perennial crops can do a lot to regenerate soil.
Cover cropping is very place specific - the best crops are specific to your climate, seasons and locality, so talk to your cooperative extension. They are a powerful tool for building fertility, adding organic matter and improving soil, and one that is worth getting to know.
My goal in the long term is for these beds to provide a warm, dry, moderately fertile site for mediterranean herbs and a few flowering perennials. That is, I wasn't trying to produce fertility for growing heavy feeders, like greens or corn. So after the alfalfa, I added some greensand and kelp, a light layer of compost, and planted into the mulch I'd already established. In went lavender, oregano, several marjorams and thymes, a rosemary that probably didn't survive the winter this year, and some plants that like or tolerate similar conditions of slightly dry soil, lots of sun and only moderate fertility - catmint, echinops and malva. And they've thrived.
Many perennial plants make wonderful fertility enhancers to annual gardens - whether perennial nitrogen fixing shrubs, whose leaf litter and root nodes enhance the trees and perennial plantings around them, comfrey and stinging nettle which can be cut for mulch or compost, small trees integrated into garden sites to provide leaf mulch, or perennial living mulches. This is one of those things that has potentially enormous long term yields, and has really only begun to be explored in a deep way.
The best soils for sequestering organic matter will be those that are in perennial plantings, that have constant inputs of organic matter - these include forests that are enriched yearly by leaf drops, permanent pastures which are manured by grazing animals (It has been calculated that Joel Salatin's grazed pastures sequester as much carbon as a similarly sized forest after decades of grazing), and perennial gardens that are carefully managed to provide their own needs.
I maintain fertility in the perennial planting I established in these beds by the occasional dumping of animal bedding on the ground, permanent mulch, wood ashes from our stove, and a strewing of kelp. I've also grown an annual crop of chamomile, a good dynamic accumulator, and left everything but the flowerheads in place. I give the whole thing an occasional boost of nitrogen by dumping dilute urine over it - urine is safe unless you have tularemia (in which case you have worse problems than not being able to fertilize with your pee) and diluted 1-7 (1-10 if you don't drink enough), it provides a real boost to plants. To be paranoid stop doing so 10 days before harvest.
More demanding annual feeders get composted chicken or goat manure, plant compost, weed and manure teas. Other plants might also get living mulches, and I rotate plants as wisely and carefully as I can, following the heavy feeders with nitrogen fixers or light feeders undersown with nitrogen fixing cover crops. My whole garden gets rotating quantities of worm casting to supplement the soil and improve its texture.
Meanwhile, in maintaining, we try to put back what we take off. Crop residues are left in place, either chopped down and incorporated into the permanent mulch or they are burned in our woodstove (for heavy, dense stalks) and returned as ash. Some of the nitrogen is returned in the form of urine. We mulch as much as possible with our own mulches - grass clippings, leaves and plants grown for compost or as mulch plants. We try not to steal too much from any one other place - but we gratefuly take things people discard, like leaves from yards when we venture into suburbia, or horse manure from our horse-keeping neighbors.
Animal manures have a very powerful role in gardening - in a perfect world, we'd compost all human manures until they were thoroughly pathogen free, and restore the soil with what we take off. But whether this is safe is debatable, and anyone who shares food will not want to risk a lawsuit. So composted animals manures are a powerful tool for maintaining fertility - one of the reasons that polycultures of animals and plants are generally more effective than either alone. We use composted human manures only on decorative and tree plantings.
Two particular ways of maintaining fertility deserve mention here - fungal soil support, by mycorrhizae (tiny fungus that colonize the soil) and biochar. Mycorrhizae have a symbiotic relationship with the roots of many plants, and can enhance the ability to plants to uptake nutrients and deal with water stress among other things. Many soils are fungi deficient, and an application of mycorrhizae can improve your plants ability to absorb the nutrients in your soil.
Biochar/Terra Preta is a fascinating subject - and one still uncertain. Terra Preta involves adding plant based charcoal (ie, not the briquets at the grocery store) to your soil. What this does is still a matter of speculation - it isn't clear, for example, whether the charcoal itself or the organic processes it enables are actually what creates the rich soil involved. Nor is it clear that all soils respond equally well to terra preta inputs - for example a study found that boreal forest soils did not seem to respond to biochar applications. That said, however, there have been some fascinating results - biochar supplemented soils seem to stimulate nitrogen fixing in legumes, for example, and while charcoal supplemented soils enable plants to take up more minerals, the soils deplete more slowly. This is a project still in the exploration stages, but one that home gardeners and small farmers can contribute to with experimentation.
We're not a closed circle by any means - we still take advantage, as long as they are available and we can afford them, of valuable amendments. But the idea is to lose as little as possible, while getting the best possible balance between improved soil, the health of the world, and a system in which you need to bring in a little less from offsite each year. This, it seems, is an entirely achievable goal.
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy
European Producers Want Credit Relief
BY JOHN W. MILLER
BRUSSELS?European ethanol producers say the extension of a U.S. ethanol tax credit for 2011, approved by Congress last month as part of the $858 billion tax-reduction bill, could prompt them to file a trade complaint with the European Union. European producers failed in lobbying efforts to halt the credit, however, the extension would apply only on sales to U.S. buyers, and not on sales abroad. The tax credit has helped fuel record production by U.S. ethanol producers. Combined with high sugar prices in Brazil and a wheat shortage in Europe, the tax credit has made mostly corn-based U.S. ethanol the ...Powered By WizardRSSFree Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator
BRUSSELS?European ethanol producers say the extension of a U.S. ethanol tax credit for 2011, approved by Congress last month as part of the $858 billion tax-reduction bill, could prompt them to file a trade complaint with the European Union. European producers failed in lobbying efforts to halt the credit, however, the extension would apply only on sales to U.S. buyers, and not on sales abroad. The tax credit has helped fuel record production by U.S. ethanol producers. Combined with high sugar prices in Brazil and a wheat shortage in Europe, the tax credit has made mostly corn-based U.S. ethanol the ...Powered By WizardRSSFree Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator
Job Losses Push Need for Energy Bill
America's urgent need for new job creation may be the driver that pushes the Senate to pass a jobs & energy bill this year. After the loss of 8.4 million jobs in the current Great Recession, Congress is searching desperately for any means to create new jobs.
Unemployment vs. Deficit "Conundrum". As former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Saturday on National Public Radio, "we as a nation save too little and we borrow too much, both individually and the government." In Paulson's new book On the Brink, he argues that Americans' relative lack of savings helped to propel the financial crisis.
Paulson: "Conundrum"
However, Paulson acknowledged to NPR host Scott Simon, the "conundrum" is that to spur the economy, we now need to spend more and create more jobs. Paulson did not offer a solution to this impasse.
Indeed, this contradiction is now paralyzing the nation's political life, as Americans are worried about both high unemployment and record deficits. The Obama Administration and Congress are now walking a tightrope between these anxieties.
Investment as Solution. The solution to this jobs vs. savings conundrum is to invest money now, into projects that when completed will help us individually and as a nation to save more.
For instance, an investment now into energy efficient buildings would create desperately needed construction jobs, but pay for itself with increased energy savings.
Investments in an advanced electric grid using renewable energy will create the engine to power the economy, without skyrocketing fuel costs.
Investments to wean our cars and trucks off imported oil can stop the transfer of wealth of trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy that is now building the economies of oil exporting nations, many of them hostile. These dollars can instead remain in the U.S. to build our own economy.
Measures which spur investments that help us to save thus meet both the urgent need for more jobs and make structural changes to help America thrive through thrift.
Private Sector Key. It is neither desirable nor possible for government to put everyone back to work with public works projects. While some investments must be made to make government operations more thrifty, the biggest savings must come in the private sector. More efficient operations will help the entire economy to thrive and compete.
The challenge, then, is to find ways to spur these private investments.
Cap & Trade in Jeopardy. The mechanism favored by economists to spur private investment in a more efficient economy is the "Cap and Trade" approach. A "Cap" on emissions is set, but polluters can "Trade" by paying someone else to cut their emissions if it is cheaper. The overall emissions limits spur investment in new technologies, and those investments create jobs. This approach is the centerpiece of the House energy and climate Bill.
However, very effective "Cap & Tax" media campaigns by large polluters and Tea Party style activists, have placed the "Cap & Trade" concept in serious jeopardy. "Cap and Trade" is not a tax but in fact is the lowest-cost means to set a pollution limit. Opponents have nevertheless loudly condemned Cap & Trade as a tax-like economic levy. Both Democrats and Republicans remember well the 1994 mid-term election debacle after Bill Clinton proposed what was deemed a "BTU Tax". Republicans have vowed to use Cap & Trade as a hammer against its supporters in this November's elections.
Climate Bill "Lite"? Some Senators are now pushing an approach that would accomplish only a handful of key measures. For instance, one proposal would require action only by electric utilities. While any progress is welcome, the failure to achieve significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions would doom the ability of the U.S. to negotiate with other countries for a world climate deal.
As global warming is by definition a worldwide problem, the failure to achieve agreements with other countries would mean the U.S.would still suffer the effects of catastrophic worldwide climate changes.
Number of Days/Yr > 100 Degrees F
Source: National Science & Technology Council
While Kansas might install efficient wind farms, it would be of little help if worldwide global warming proceeds unabated and turns Kansas into a region stricken by a Dust Bowl style permanent drought, destroying its agriculture.
Five Key Energy & Jobs Measures. If we assume for the sake of discussion that a limited jobs & energy bill this year won't include either Cap-and-Trade or new taxes, what measures are are critical? Could substantial greenhouse gas emissions cuts still be achieved? What must proponents of good bill insist be included?
The following five key measures could begin to spur investments in private job creation and greenhouse gas reductions across multiple sectors of the economy:
1. Better Energy Building Codes: Buildings account for almost 50% of total U.S. energy use and 70% of our electricity use. This makes new energy building codes the single most effective energy saving and emissions reductions measure available. The jobs created would be in the severely distressed construction industry.
Source: Architecture 2030
The group Archictecture 2030, comprised of the nation's most prominent architecture and building firms, has estimated the new energy building codes contained in the House jobs & climate bill would save six times more greenhouse gases than could be saved by a fleet of 100 new nuclear reactors. By the year 2050, the new energy building codes would by themselves reduce building sector CO2 emissions by 49% below 2005 levels. Since the building sector accounts for almost half of total U.S. energy use, the new building codes could achieve a reduction of almost one quarter of total U.S. energy-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
The new building codes adopt standards whose cost as part of a mortgage payment must be less than the cost of the energy saved -- so they cannot be required unless they save money.
Building better buildings also creates more construction jobs. Doing the things needed to make buildings more efficient -- better caulking, insulation, etc -- are low tech and highly labor intensive.
If builders had a way to move most of the money consumers are spending on utility bills, and instead buy better houses with this same money, they would shift those monies tomorrow. Better energy building codes accomplish this.
We already know how to build more efficient buildings. It just makes sense to stop building things wrong so we don't have to go back and fix them later.
2. Energy Saver Home Tax Credit for New & Retrofit Homes. To provide an immediate jobs boost to the construction industry and ease the transition to more energy efficient homes, Congress should revise the Homebuyer Tax Credit The current Homebuyer Tax Credit expires April 30, 2010. As the housing industry is still severely depressed, it is a sure bet there will be calls to extend it.
However, studies have shown the current Homebuyer Credit is not creating many jobs. Simply selling homes does not require hiring construction workers. Homes need to be newly built, or retrofitted, to create new construction jobs. An Energy Saver Home Credit could implement an effective requirement for job creation. As it would be more targeted, it could pay for itself through economic multiplier effects.
Architecture 2030 has estimated that a similar measure to promote new and retrofit home energy efficiency would create 4.5 million job years if only 2.2% of homes participate.
To receive a Credit for purchase of a new home, the new Energy Saver Home Credit would apply when the new home meets energy standards at least 20% better than energy building codes. For instance, if mandatory energy building codes require a 30% savings compared to 2006 codes, the new Energy Saver Home Credit would require a 50% savings. This would reward builders who do the extra work (and hire the extra workers) to make the home more efficient than required.
To receive an Energy Saver Home Credit for the purchase -- or refinancing -- of an existing home, an energy retrofit achieving at least a 20% energy reduction would be required. Thus, as existing homes are purchased, or refinanced, there would be a strong incentive to bring those homes up to more efficient energy standards.
3. Economy-Wide New Equipment and Transportation Efficiency Standards: Another key provision to stop building things wrong is to enact improved energy efficiency standards for lighting, appliances, and heavy trucks and transportation equipment. The House energy & climate bill contains these provisions to require cost-effective changes to how new equipment is built.
These new lighting, appliance, and equipment standards would bring into effect savings across all sectors of the economy -- industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural and the critically important transportation sector. As new energy efficient technologies are available that become cost-effective, new equipment would need to be manufactured to these more efficient standards.
This provision would create jobs by helping the U.S. economy run more efficiently and competitively. It would also create a significant export opportunity for the U.S. to design and manufacture energy-efficient equipment to the world market.
4. Renewable Energy and Efficiency Standard (REES) for Electric Utilities. Energy Information Administration Modeling of the House energy & climate bill has indicated that under that bill's provisions, over 80% of the actual reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 would be implemented by electric utilities. This is because, as shown in the EPA chart below, electricity generation accounts for the lion's share of U.S.direct CO2 emissions. Most importantly, conversion of electric utilities to low-carbon sources is readily workable, whereas other sectors of the economy such as transportation may take longer to reduce emissions.
Source: EPA Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A majority of states now require increasing percentages of kWh's to be generated by renewable energy. California has a 33% by 2020 standard, and Colorado is now moving to adopt a 30% by 2020 standard. (Colorado is particularly noteworthy as it began with over 2/3 of its electricity generated by coal in 2005) Overall, 29 states have adopted minimum requirements for renewable generation and 4 have adopted "goals":
Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The public has embraced this approach as it focuses on adoption of new technologies rather than economic measures.
The House climate bill contains a flexible Renewable Energy and Efficiency Standard (REES) requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their kWh's from a wide selection of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources by 2020. That standard also gives credit to utilities who choose to meet part of their kWh's using Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS), new hydro, or new nuclear power.
A report prepared by the Chicago consulting firm Navigant has recently estimated that a standard requiring 25% of the nation's electricity to be supplied by renewable sources by 2025 can create 274,000 new jobs. The report's sponsors noted that meaningful requirements for renewables are critical for the U.S. to compete with China in attracting renewable industry manufacturing facilities.
While the House bill's REES standard stopped at only 20%, the bill ultimately used Cap & Trade to require electric utilities to achieve much greater reductions in emissions -- roughly 50% by 2035 and over 80% by 2050. If Cap & Trade is not adopted, however, a continuing "ratcheting upward" of REES levels might instead be used to achieve similar electric utility emissions reductions.
If a REES requirement at high levels is adopted, it should also include power plant efficiency conversions. Natural gas power plants and efficiency tune-ups can also help utilities lower emissions. To allow more flexibility at lower cost than a strict renewables-only requirement, REES levels above 20% should include improvements to generator efficiencies (e.g. fuel-shifting to natural gas from coal, or overall efficiency upgrades) as a qualifying REES energy efficiency measure.
To complement a Federal REES, the bill must include strong Federal transmission siting measures to insure needed transmission lines from new renewable power plants can be built.
5. Agricultural and Local Governments Offsets Programs. The House climate bill creates a special "Offsets" program to allow polluters subject to its Cap-and-Trade measures to instead pay to help farmers reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These USDA-administered programs might include carbon sequestration through better pasture management, conversion of crop residue (straw) to biochar, or paying for a dairy farmer to install a methane generator.
Source: USDA Harvesting Clean Energy Conference
While technically this program is something like a "Trade" provision in a "Cap and Trade" bill, its separate administration by USDA would allow it to be included in a new bill even without an overall "Cap and Trade" scheme. For instance, electric utilities might be allowed to purchase some Agricultural Offsets from USDA as one means of meeting their REES levels.
If the USDA program proves successful, another special-purpose Offsets program might also be developed, for local governments. For instance, EPA might advance a program to fund methane capture & usage at municipal waste treatment plants and landfills.
Some Measure of Success. The inclusion of the above Five Measures in a Jobs & Energy bill this year would accomplish many of the job creation and greenhouse gas emissions reductions that might have been included in a more comprehensive jobs & climate bill. Almost all sectors of the economy would be touched, but directly rather than through cross-funding mechanisms.
Nothing to Call a "Tax". A limited jobs & energy bill enacted this year might not include any requirements for oil refineries or natural gas distributors to meet "Caps" on their sales or purchase "Allowances" and "Offsets". Hence, it is unlikely voters would see such a bill as imposing any kind of levy that opponents could label a "tax".
No New Money Raised. None of the above measures require adoption of major new funding mechanisms. (The Energy Saver Home Credit requires funding, but it is proposed as a more effective replacement to an existing Homebuyer Tax Credit.) All other measures are regulatory in nature and only require administration. They are funded by the private sector (e.g. electric utility bonds, and home mortgages) and adopt measures which will pay for themselves through lower fossil fuel costs.
Many Programs Not Possible. With no new funding mechanism, no new money would be raised. Therefore, measures which require significant funding might not be adopted. These include proposed funding for new state energy office programs, increases in low income weatherization, funding of advanced automobile research & development, rebates to impacted electric and gas local distribution companies, funding of international projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, funding of loan defaults to investment bankers by utilities who build new nuclear power plants, or a proposed $60 billion in new funding for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.
Many of these additional programs might also create jobs and significantly reduce greenhouse gases. Some may be critically necessary to achieve an international climate agreement. Many are demanded by regional lobbies to ease the perceived costs of converting to cleaner energy. Some are simply demanded by powerful lobbies who want Federal funding.
However, they are not included in the Five Measures above, because there would be no way to pay for them.
Trading May Yet Come. If Congress wishes to fund these additional efforts, adoption of a more comprehensive bill including Cap & Trade is likely to be required. Such an Act, if structured as economists recommend such as in the House bill, would require all polluting industries such as oil refineries, factories, and natural gas distributors to purchase pollution Allowances if they wish to continue to emit greenhouse gases or to sell to end users who would burn their fuels. Industries could choose to reduce their emissions, or pay for Allowances and Offsets for someone else to reduce emissions. Prices for such fuels as gasoline, diesel fuel, and natural gas would rise slightly if consumers do not reduce total usage below the emissions "Caps".
Polluters would not pay one dime for any Allowance or Offset, however, unless it was cheaper to buy than to reduce their own emissions. Many industries will ask Congress for this option, so a "Trade" may yet come to pass in any climate pollution-capping bill.
Half-Assessed? Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has maintained his strong support for a comprehensive jobs & climate Bill, because he sees the need for enacting many of these other efforts. He has recently been quoted as saying anything less than a comprehensive bill is "Half-Ass..d".
Ultimately it will not be sufficient to adopt just the Five Measures above. Global warming is real. China is racing ahead of us now, and we need strong action to compete. In other words, in many ways Senator Graham is right.
Enacting any kind of bill without the Five Measures above, however, is also "Half-Ass..d". To fund nuclear power loan defaults, CCS, and offshore oil drilling and not do the measures that create the most jobs would ignore our best opportunities. Other countries will move ahead and steal the lead.
America's jobless deserve better than that. Congress needs to move now to adopt a Jobs & Energy bill that will put Americans back to work.
Powered By WizardRSSFree Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator
Unemployment vs. Deficit "Conundrum". As former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Saturday on National Public Radio, "we as a nation save too little and we borrow too much, both individually and the government." In Paulson's new book On the Brink, he argues that Americans' relative lack of savings helped to propel the financial crisis.
Paulson: "Conundrum"
However, Paulson acknowledged to NPR host Scott Simon, the "conundrum" is that to spur the economy, we now need to spend more and create more jobs. Paulson did not offer a solution to this impasse.
Indeed, this contradiction is now paralyzing the nation's political life, as Americans are worried about both high unemployment and record deficits. The Obama Administration and Congress are now walking a tightrope between these anxieties.
Investment as Solution. The solution to this jobs vs. savings conundrum is to invest money now, into projects that when completed will help us individually and as a nation to save more.
For instance, an investment now into energy efficient buildings would create desperately needed construction jobs, but pay for itself with increased energy savings.
Investments in an advanced electric grid using renewable energy will create the engine to power the economy, without skyrocketing fuel costs.
Investments to wean our cars and trucks off imported oil can stop the transfer of wealth of trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy that is now building the economies of oil exporting nations, many of them hostile. These dollars can instead remain in the U.S. to build our own economy.
Measures which spur investments that help us to save thus meet both the urgent need for more jobs and make structural changes to help America thrive through thrift.
Private Sector Key. It is neither desirable nor possible for government to put everyone back to work with public works projects. While some investments must be made to make government operations more thrifty, the biggest savings must come in the private sector. More efficient operations will help the entire economy to thrive and compete.
The challenge, then, is to find ways to spur these private investments.
Cap & Trade in Jeopardy. The mechanism favored by economists to spur private investment in a more efficient economy is the "Cap and Trade" approach. A "Cap" on emissions is set, but polluters can "Trade" by paying someone else to cut their emissions if it is cheaper. The overall emissions limits spur investment in new technologies, and those investments create jobs. This approach is the centerpiece of the House energy and climate Bill.
However, very effective "Cap & Tax" media campaigns by large polluters and Tea Party style activists, have placed the "Cap & Trade" concept in serious jeopardy. "Cap and Trade" is not a tax but in fact is the lowest-cost means to set a pollution limit. Opponents have nevertheless loudly condemned Cap & Trade as a tax-like economic levy. Both Democrats and Republicans remember well the 1994 mid-term election debacle after Bill Clinton proposed what was deemed a "BTU Tax". Republicans have vowed to use Cap & Trade as a hammer against its supporters in this November's elections.
Climate Bill "Lite"? Some Senators are now pushing an approach that would accomplish only a handful of key measures. For instance, one proposal would require action only by electric utilities. While any progress is welcome, the failure to achieve significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions would doom the ability of the U.S. to negotiate with other countries for a world climate deal.
As global warming is by definition a worldwide problem, the failure to achieve agreements with other countries would mean the U.S.would still suffer the effects of catastrophic worldwide climate changes.
Number of Days/Yr > 100 Degrees F
Source: National Science & Technology Council
While Kansas might install efficient wind farms, it would be of little help if worldwide global warming proceeds unabated and turns Kansas into a region stricken by a Dust Bowl style permanent drought, destroying its agriculture.
Five Key Energy & Jobs Measures. If we assume for the sake of discussion that a limited jobs & energy bill this year won't include either Cap-and-Trade or new taxes, what measures are are critical? Could substantial greenhouse gas emissions cuts still be achieved? What must proponents of good bill insist be included?
The following five key measures could begin to spur investments in private job creation and greenhouse gas reductions across multiple sectors of the economy:
1. Better Energy Building Codes: Buildings account for almost 50% of total U.S. energy use and 70% of our electricity use. This makes new energy building codes the single most effective energy saving and emissions reductions measure available. The jobs created would be in the severely distressed construction industry.
Source: Architecture 2030
The group Archictecture 2030, comprised of the nation's most prominent architecture and building firms, has estimated the new energy building codes contained in the House jobs & climate bill would save six times more greenhouse gases than could be saved by a fleet of 100 new nuclear reactors. By the year 2050, the new energy building codes would by themselves reduce building sector CO2 emissions by 49% below 2005 levels. Since the building sector accounts for almost half of total U.S. energy use, the new building codes could achieve a reduction of almost one quarter of total U.S. energy-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
The new building codes adopt standards whose cost as part of a mortgage payment must be less than the cost of the energy saved -- so they cannot be required unless they save money.
Building better buildings also creates more construction jobs. Doing the things needed to make buildings more efficient -- better caulking, insulation, etc -- are low tech and highly labor intensive.
If builders had a way to move most of the money consumers are spending on utility bills, and instead buy better houses with this same money, they would shift those monies tomorrow. Better energy building codes accomplish this.
We already know how to build more efficient buildings. It just makes sense to stop building things wrong so we don't have to go back and fix them later.
2. Energy Saver Home Tax Credit for New & Retrofit Homes. To provide an immediate jobs boost to the construction industry and ease the transition to more energy efficient homes, Congress should revise the Homebuyer Tax Credit The current Homebuyer Tax Credit expires April 30, 2010. As the housing industry is still severely depressed, it is a sure bet there will be calls to extend it.
However, studies have shown the current Homebuyer Credit is not creating many jobs. Simply selling homes does not require hiring construction workers. Homes need to be newly built, or retrofitted, to create new construction jobs. An Energy Saver Home Credit could implement an effective requirement for job creation. As it would be more targeted, it could pay for itself through economic multiplier effects.
Architecture 2030 has estimated that a similar measure to promote new and retrofit home energy efficiency would create 4.5 million job years if only 2.2% of homes participate.
To receive a Credit for purchase of a new home, the new Energy Saver Home Credit would apply when the new home meets energy standards at least 20% better than energy building codes. For instance, if mandatory energy building codes require a 30% savings compared to 2006 codes, the new Energy Saver Home Credit would require a 50% savings. This would reward builders who do the extra work (and hire the extra workers) to make the home more efficient than required.
To receive an Energy Saver Home Credit for the purchase -- or refinancing -- of an existing home, an energy retrofit achieving at least a 20% energy reduction would be required. Thus, as existing homes are purchased, or refinanced, there would be a strong incentive to bring those homes up to more efficient energy standards.
3. Economy-Wide New Equipment and Transportation Efficiency Standards: Another key provision to stop building things wrong is to enact improved energy efficiency standards for lighting, appliances, and heavy trucks and transportation equipment. The House energy & climate bill contains these provisions to require cost-effective changes to how new equipment is built.
These new lighting, appliance, and equipment standards would bring into effect savings across all sectors of the economy -- industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural and the critically important transportation sector. As new energy efficient technologies are available that become cost-effective, new equipment would need to be manufactured to these more efficient standards.
This provision would create jobs by helping the U.S. economy run more efficiently and competitively. It would also create a significant export opportunity for the U.S. to design and manufacture energy-efficient equipment to the world market.
4. Renewable Energy and Efficiency Standard (REES) for Electric Utilities. Energy Information Administration Modeling of the House energy & climate bill has indicated that under that bill's provisions, over 80% of the actual reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 would be implemented by electric utilities. This is because, as shown in the EPA chart below, electricity generation accounts for the lion's share of U.S.direct CO2 emissions. Most importantly, conversion of electric utilities to low-carbon sources is readily workable, whereas other sectors of the economy such as transportation may take longer to reduce emissions.
Source: EPA Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A majority of states now require increasing percentages of kWh's to be generated by renewable energy. California has a 33% by 2020 standard, and Colorado is now moving to adopt a 30% by 2020 standard. (Colorado is particularly noteworthy as it began with over 2/3 of its electricity generated by coal in 2005) Overall, 29 states have adopted minimum requirements for renewable generation and 4 have adopted "goals":
Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The public has embraced this approach as it focuses on adoption of new technologies rather than economic measures.
The House climate bill contains a flexible Renewable Energy and Efficiency Standard (REES) requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their kWh's from a wide selection of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources by 2020. That standard also gives credit to utilities who choose to meet part of their kWh's using Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS), new hydro, or new nuclear power.
A report prepared by the Chicago consulting firm Navigant has recently estimated that a standard requiring 25% of the nation's electricity to be supplied by renewable sources by 2025 can create 274,000 new jobs. The report's sponsors noted that meaningful requirements for renewables are critical for the U.S. to compete with China in attracting renewable industry manufacturing facilities.
While the House bill's REES standard stopped at only 20%, the bill ultimately used Cap & Trade to require electric utilities to achieve much greater reductions in emissions -- roughly 50% by 2035 and over 80% by 2050. If Cap & Trade is not adopted, however, a continuing "ratcheting upward" of REES levels might instead be used to achieve similar electric utility emissions reductions.
If a REES requirement at high levels is adopted, it should also include power plant efficiency conversions. Natural gas power plants and efficiency tune-ups can also help utilities lower emissions. To allow more flexibility at lower cost than a strict renewables-only requirement, REES levels above 20% should include improvements to generator efficiencies (e.g. fuel-shifting to natural gas from coal, or overall efficiency upgrades) as a qualifying REES energy efficiency measure.
To complement a Federal REES, the bill must include strong Federal transmission siting measures to insure needed transmission lines from new renewable power plants can be built.
5. Agricultural and Local Governments Offsets Programs. The House climate bill creates a special "Offsets" program to allow polluters subject to its Cap-and-Trade measures to instead pay to help farmers reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These USDA-administered programs might include carbon sequestration through better pasture management, conversion of crop residue (straw) to biochar, or paying for a dairy farmer to install a methane generator.
Source: USDA Harvesting Clean Energy Conference
While technically this program is something like a "Trade" provision in a "Cap and Trade" bill, its separate administration by USDA would allow it to be included in a new bill even without an overall "Cap and Trade" scheme. For instance, electric utilities might be allowed to purchase some Agricultural Offsets from USDA as one means of meeting their REES levels.
If the USDA program proves successful, another special-purpose Offsets program might also be developed, for local governments. For instance, EPA might advance a program to fund methane capture & usage at municipal waste treatment plants and landfills.
Some Measure of Success. The inclusion of the above Five Measures in a Jobs & Energy bill this year would accomplish many of the job creation and greenhouse gas emissions reductions that might have been included in a more comprehensive jobs & climate bill. Almost all sectors of the economy would be touched, but directly rather than through cross-funding mechanisms.
Nothing to Call a "Tax". A limited jobs & energy bill enacted this year might not include any requirements for oil refineries or natural gas distributors to meet "Caps" on their sales or purchase "Allowances" and "Offsets". Hence, it is unlikely voters would see such a bill as imposing any kind of levy that opponents could label a "tax".
No New Money Raised. None of the above measures require adoption of major new funding mechanisms. (The Energy Saver Home Credit requires funding, but it is proposed as a more effective replacement to an existing Homebuyer Tax Credit.) All other measures are regulatory in nature and only require administration. They are funded by the private sector (e.g. electric utility bonds, and home mortgages) and adopt measures which will pay for themselves through lower fossil fuel costs.
Many Programs Not Possible. With no new funding mechanism, no new money would be raised. Therefore, measures which require significant funding might not be adopted. These include proposed funding for new state energy office programs, increases in low income weatherization, funding of advanced automobile research & development, rebates to impacted electric and gas local distribution companies, funding of international projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, funding of loan defaults to investment bankers by utilities who build new nuclear power plants, or a proposed $60 billion in new funding for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.
Many of these additional programs might also create jobs and significantly reduce greenhouse gases. Some may be critically necessary to achieve an international climate agreement. Many are demanded by regional lobbies to ease the perceived costs of converting to cleaner energy. Some are simply demanded by powerful lobbies who want Federal funding.
However, they are not included in the Five Measures above, because there would be no way to pay for them.
Trading May Yet Come. If Congress wishes to fund these additional efforts, adoption of a more comprehensive bill including Cap & Trade is likely to be required. Such an Act, if structured as economists recommend such as in the House bill, would require all polluting industries such as oil refineries, factories, and natural gas distributors to purchase pollution Allowances if they wish to continue to emit greenhouse gases or to sell to end users who would burn their fuels. Industries could choose to reduce their emissions, or pay for Allowances and Offsets for someone else to reduce emissions. Prices for such fuels as gasoline, diesel fuel, and natural gas would rise slightly if consumers do not reduce total usage below the emissions "Caps".
Polluters would not pay one dime for any Allowance or Offset, however, unless it was cheaper to buy than to reduce their own emissions. Many industries will ask Congress for this option, so a "Trade" may yet come to pass in any climate pollution-capping bill.
Half-Assessed? Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has maintained his strong support for a comprehensive jobs & climate Bill, because he sees the need for enacting many of these other efforts. He has recently been quoted as saying anything less than a comprehensive bill is "Half-Ass..d".
Ultimately it will not be sufficient to adopt just the Five Measures above. Global warming is real. China is racing ahead of us now, and we need strong action to compete. In other words, in many ways Senator Graham is right.
Enacting any kind of bill without the Five Measures above, however, is also "Half-Ass..d". To fund nuclear power loan defaults, CCS, and offshore oil drilling and not do the measures that create the most jobs would ignore our best opportunities. Other countries will move ahead and steal the lead.
America's jobless deserve better than that. Congress needs to move now to adopt a Jobs & Energy bill that will put Americans back to work.
Powered By WizardRSSFree Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator
European Producers Want Credit Relief
BY JOHN W. MILLER
BRUSSELS?European ethanol producers say the extension of a U.S. ethanol tax credit for 2011, approved by Congress last month as part of the $858 billion tax-reduction bill, could prompt them to file a trade complaint with the European Union. European producers failed in lobbying efforts to halt the credit, however, the extension would apply only on sales to U.S. buyers, and not on sales abroad. The tax credit has helped fuel record production by U.S. ethanol producers. Combined with high sugar prices in Brazil and a wheat shortage in Europe, the tax credit has made mostly corn-based U.S. ethanol the ...Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources
BRUSSELS?European ethanol producers say the extension of a U.S. ethanol tax credit for 2011, approved by Congress last month as part of the $858 billion tax-reduction bill, could prompt them to file a trade complaint with the European Union. European producers failed in lobbying efforts to halt the credit, however, the extension would apply only on sales to U.S. buyers, and not on sales abroad. The tax credit has helped fuel record production by U.S. ethanol producers. Combined with high sugar prices in Brazil and a wheat shortage in Europe, the tax credit has made mostly corn-based U.S. ethanol the ...Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources
Wind Energy Development Can Revitalize Rural America
Wind Energy Development Can Revitalize Rural AmericaDate: 1/25/2011Source: Stacia Cudd, National Association of Farm Broadcasting News Service.Audio with Tom Potter, Colorado Wind for Schools Facilitator (MP3 1.3 MB) Download Windows Media Player. Time: 00:02:46
Many rural communities have seen the benefits of wind energy development in action ? but some concerns and doubts remain.
Tom Potter is the Colorado facilitator of the Wind for Schools program and has spent quite a bit of time in the rural communities of the state. He's heard people questioning the viability of harnessing wind for energy and whether it's even worth it. But according to Potter, many of the concerns are being overcome by a desire to fix an even bigger problem in the countryside.
"People in rural areas that I talk to, really have a big concern about what they call the depopulation of their county and of their town and of their farm areas. The major concern is that they don't see their kids again because there isn't a future for them here. They already see, as we're building out wind farms and the like, that some of the kids are coming back and the flight of the youth is being reversed somewhat."
In fact, Potter has seen that in action. He's visited several schools and says there's a general buzz ? an excitement ? about wind energy projects in schools. Potter recalls a visit to the high school in Burlington, Colorado, where he had a chance to hear what students think about wind energy and what it means to their future.
"The seniors there were talking about a very high interest in renewables projects. They were talking about the future. And that could include a future of, for instance, engineering school to be a wind engineer ? or the future that could include some commercial operation with wind."
Of course, as Potter points out, that future depends a lot on the actions of the parents of these students and today's leaders. That's why Potter decided he'd like to adapt the well-known "A Christmas Carol" story to an energy story.
"If we really understood what the energy picture is and how we're impacted by it and how our shortsighted decisions are making long-term difficulty for the next generations, would we continue doing that? And in our age, I think the polar bears are in some ways like the Tiny Tims ? each of those photos of a polar bear jumping off an ice flow that's melting giving us a chance to focus for a minute and rethink the energy habits we've gotten into and what do they mean about where we're going."
Potter believes new energy interests could revitalize the rural way of life and make a big difference in the country's future ? and likely even the future of the entire world.
"At every scale wind can bring benefits. At the small scale, increased energy security. At the community scale, financial benefits to the areas entrepreneurs and some improved economic choices for the community. And then finally at large scale, tax relief, lease income, and new rural jobs."
Potter says wind energy is the future of rural America.This information was last updated on 1/25/2011
Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators Free Energy Home
Friday, July 29, 2011
Wave and Tidal Energy on the Rise: But Will it Work?
Companies have been developing marine energy devices for more than 100 years ? but success has been limited.
With more advanced materials and a long track record of failures to learn from, a number of companies are working on promising technologies. However, leading technology developers like Aquamarine Power, Atlantis Resources Corporation, Ocean Power Technologies, OpenHydro, Ocean Renewable Power Company and Pelamis have been secretive about the performance of their devices.
Because there is little data to evaluate, it's still uncertain how successful wave and tidal companies will be as larger projects are deployed.
The report from Douglas Westwood highlights the many challenges the sector faces: Reliability, cost of electricity, environmental protection issues and availability of project finance. There are many unknowns facing the industry that may prevent companies from reaching the 150-MW projection outlined in the report.
With that said, more governments are providing R&D funding and incentives for project developers, providing a needed boost for these early-stage companies.
According to Douglas-Westwood, The UK, Canada and US will be the three biggest markets through 2015. The UK leads with 110 MW of projected installations. Driven by a strong tidal resource, excellent R&D and support, Canada is the second largest market. The US is also making progress, again with much R&D funding attracting developers.
Powered By WizardRSSHome Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity
Iceland Seeks Talks With Magma On Orka Energy Group
Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. Nasdaq delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.Powered By WizardRSSFree Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. Nasdaq delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.Powered By WizardRSSFree Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator
Fertile inquiries: A very basic primer on creating and maintaining soil fertility
Gardeners like to compete with each other over who has the worst soil. You wouldn't think we'd be proud of this, but what can I say, we're a strange bunch. One will argue for his hard clay, baked in the sun, another for her sand, without a trace of organic matter. I've got my own candidate for the worst soil ever - the stuff in the beds around my house.
Oh, texturally, it is among the best I've got - sandy loam, warms up nicely, isn't too wet like much of the rest of my soil. It had some nice enough foundation plantings, and I mostly ignored it for the first few years I was here. But a couple of years ago, I decided that I wanted to make use of this growing space, and then I discovered that my soil, was, well...dead.
By dead, I mean there wasn't a living thing in it. Not a beetle or a spider, and especially not an earthworm. It was weird. I knew that some previous owners of our house were umm... shiny green lawn people, and I don't know if that has something to do with it, but this stuff was "Its dead, Jim" dead.
So we embarked on a campaign of soil improvement. Any kind of soil improvement has two parts. First, there's getting your soil up to speed. In some cases, this might not be much - maybe some ashes from your stove or a little lime to even out some acidity, or maybe a little rock powder for trace minerals, or a light dressing of the rabbit poop your rabbits make sure you get anyway. If your soil is basically in good shape - you've had a soil test and you know that it is high in organic matter and sufficient in macro and micronutrients.
But what if it isn't? What if you've got dead soil, like mine, or rock hard clay, or soil (also like mine) that has been leached of nutrients? Again, there are two projects here - the first is the short term building of soil so that you can get to gardening. The second is the long term maintenence of soil health, and the addition of more organic matter, so that eventually, your soil can hold enough organic matter to save the world - or at least sequester a bit of carbon. Plus, things will grow better. Win-win.
My favorite way to build soil on something that is completely unworkable is the lasagna method, which is pretty much sheet mulching (covering the soil with newspaper or cardboard, then laying on as much organic material as you've got, with some dirt or compost on it. This makes raised beds, which is good if what you have is either wet or rock hard, or if you are, say putting your dirt on gravel or something toxic. It might be tough in a dry, hot climate though - raised beds dry out and warm up in the spring earlier, and keeping them wet might be tough. In that case, you might consider digging into the ground, creating sunken beds with the same mixture. We use leaves, grass clippings and farm bedding as the main ingredients in our lasagna beds, with a layer of find compost on top if I'm starting seeds in it.
If you need to amend soil, you'll have the choice of synthetic or natural soil amendments. Generally speaking, you'll want the natural ones. I'm not a complete organic purist - I think there are times when artificial fertilizer use is justified. But there's a price to be paid for its use, and care is needed - otherwise you can end up contaminating your water supply, wasting your money and depleting your soil overall. I don't generally use synthetic fertilizers, and if I were to use them, I'd use them only on untilled soil with plenty of organic matter added, in small and precise quantities. Most of the value of artificial fertilizers is presently lost into waterways and various other sites of contamination.
You can buy an organic fertilizer mix, or you can make your own. I generally use a mix of alfalfa meal, rock phosphate, and wood ashes, along with greensand and kelp, as well as occasionally special additions to deal with soil types or plant special needs. But I don't know about you, but I can't mine rock phosphate from my property, nor do I produce enough alfalfa to fertilize my garden. So this is not a long-term sustainable project. I use these amendments sparingly, where they are needed to bring soils up to basic fertility.
Then, we try to keep the fertility there. That means cover cropping a portion of our garden every year, integrating dynamic accumulator plants into our plantings (these are plants that bring up nutrients from the subsoil), undercropping with nitrogen fixers (these plants fix nitrogen from the air), mulching (we try to grow as much of our own mulch as possible in place - another good use for undercropping - a nice planting of buckwheat under tomatoes, or white clover under garlic can provide a living mulch and then the next planting cycle's mulching materials), and the heavy application of organic material - that is, compost and composted animal manures.
Every time we take something off of the soil, we are removing nutrients from our soil, and depleting, to some degree, the organic material available to them. High levels of organic material are essential for soil life and health - so faced with dead soil, the first thing I did was put my turkey poults in a chicken tractor on top of the border for a few days. The easiest way to move the poop to the garden beds is sometimes to move the poop makers there . Now since this was raw manure, I made sure there was plenty of bedding, and I wasn't planting food plants there right away. Had I needed to use it immediately, I would have switched to already composted manure, and gotten out the wheelbarrow.
Next, I planted the foundation plantings to annual alfalfa, since it was already summer, and warm. Different cover crops are specific to different seasons - they are spring, summer or fall sown. You sow the fall crops to overwinter - to hold soil in place, and add organic material. Winter rye, hairy vetch, fava beans (in some climates) are all common winter sown cover crops. Spring sown crops are generally cut down in summer, and either stay in place all season (things like red clover), providing multiple doses of fertility and green material, or they are cut down (oats, say) to provide organic material for the fall garden. Summer crops (buckwheat, annual alfalfa) can go in after the peas or the early lettuce, and grow fast and fill the space until fall. For a site you don't plan to get to for a year or two, perennial crops can do a lot to regenerate soil.
Cover cropping is very place specific - the best crops are specific to your climate, seasons and locality, so talk to your cooperative extension. They are a powerful tool for building fertility, adding organic matter and improving soil, and one that is worth getting to know.
My goal in the long term is for these beds to provide a warm, dry, moderately fertile site for mediterranean herbs and a few flowering perennials. That is, I wasn't trying to produce fertility for growing heavy feeders, like greens or corn. So after the alfalfa, I added some greensand and kelp, a light layer of compost, and planted into the mulch I'd already established. In went lavender, oregano, several marjorams and thymes, a rosemary that probably didn't survive the winter this year, and some plants that like or tolerate similar conditions of slightly dry soil, lots of sun and only moderate fertility - catmint, echinops and malva. And they've thrived.
Many perennial plants make wonderful fertility enhancers to annual gardens - whether perennial nitrogen fixing shrubs, whose leaf litter and root nodes enhance the trees and perennial plantings around them, comfrey and stinging nettle which can be cut for mulch or compost, small trees integrated into garden sites to provide leaf mulch, or perennial living mulches. This is one of those things that has potentially enormous long term yields, and has really only begun to be explored in a deep way.
The best soils for sequestering organic matter will be those that are in perennial plantings, that have constant inputs of organic matter - these include forests that are enriched yearly by leaf drops, permanent pastures which are manured by grazing animals (It has been calculated that Joel Salatin's grazed pastures sequester as much carbon as a similarly sized forest after decades of grazing), and perennial gardens that are carefully managed to provide their own needs.
I maintain fertility in the perennial planting I established in these beds by the occasional dumping of animal bedding on the ground, permanent mulch, wood ashes from our stove, and a strewing of kelp. I've also grown an annual crop of chamomile, a good dynamic accumulator, and left everything but the flowerheads in place. I give the whole thing an occasional boost of nitrogen by dumping dilute urine over it - urine is safe unless you have tularemia (in which case you have worse problems than not being able to fertilize with your pee) and diluted 1-7 (1-10 if you don't drink enough), it provides a real boost to plants. To be paranoid stop doing so 10 days before harvest.
More demanding annual feeders get composted chicken or goat manure, plant compost, weed and manure teas. Other plants might also get living mulches, and I rotate plants as wisely and carefully as I can, following the heavy feeders with nitrogen fixers or light feeders undersown with nitrogen fixing cover crops. My whole garden gets rotating quantities of worm casting to supplement the soil and improve its texture.
Meanwhile, in maintaining, we try to put back what we take off. Crop residues are left in place, either chopped down and incorporated into the permanent mulch or they are burned in our woodstove (for heavy, dense stalks) and returned as ash. Some of the nitrogen is returned in the form of urine. We mulch as much as possible with our own mulches - grass clippings, leaves and plants grown for compost or as mulch plants. We try not to steal too much from any one other place - but we gratefuly take things people discard, like leaves from yards when we venture into suburbia, or horse manure from our horse-keeping neighbors.
Animal manures have a very powerful role in gardening - in a perfect world, we'd compost all human manures until they were thoroughly pathogen free, and restore the soil with what we take off. But whether this is safe is debatable, and anyone who shares food will not want to risk a lawsuit. So composted animals manures are a powerful tool for maintaining fertility - one of the reasons that polycultures of animals and plants are generally more effective than either alone. We use composted human manures only on decorative and tree plantings.
Two particular ways of maintaining fertility deserve mention here - fungal soil support, by mycorrhizae (tiny fungus that colonize the soil) and biochar. Mycorrhizae have a symbiotic relationship with the roots of many plants, and can enhance the ability to plants to uptake nutrients and deal with water stress among other things. Many soils are fungi deficient, and an application of mycorrhizae can improve your plants ability to absorb the nutrients in your soil.
Biochar/Terra Preta is a fascinating subject - and one still uncertain. Terra Preta involves adding plant based charcoal (ie, not the briquets at the grocery store) to your soil. What this does is still a matter of speculation - it isn't clear, for example, whether the charcoal itself or the organic processes it enables are actually what creates the rich soil involved. Nor is it clear that all soils respond equally well to terra preta inputs - for example a study found that boreal forest soils did not seem to respond to biochar applications. That said, however, there have been some fascinating results - biochar supplemented soils seem to stimulate nitrogen fixing in legumes, for example, and while charcoal supplemented soils enable plants to take up more minerals, the soils deplete more slowly. This is a project still in the exploration stages, but one that home gardeners and small farmers can contribute to with experimentation.
We're not a closed circle by any means - we still take advantage, as long as they are available and we can afford them, of valuable amendments. But the idea is to lose as little as possible, while getting the best possible balance between improved soil, the health of the world, and a system in which you need to bring in a little less from offsite each year. This, it seems, is an entirely achievable goal.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator
Oh, texturally, it is among the best I've got - sandy loam, warms up nicely, isn't too wet like much of the rest of my soil. It had some nice enough foundation plantings, and I mostly ignored it for the first few years I was here. But a couple of years ago, I decided that I wanted to make use of this growing space, and then I discovered that my soil, was, well...dead.
By dead, I mean there wasn't a living thing in it. Not a beetle or a spider, and especially not an earthworm. It was weird. I knew that some previous owners of our house were umm... shiny green lawn people, and I don't know if that has something to do with it, but this stuff was "Its dead, Jim" dead.
So we embarked on a campaign of soil improvement. Any kind of soil improvement has two parts. First, there's getting your soil up to speed. In some cases, this might not be much - maybe some ashes from your stove or a little lime to even out some acidity, or maybe a little rock powder for trace minerals, or a light dressing of the rabbit poop your rabbits make sure you get anyway. If your soil is basically in good shape - you've had a soil test and you know that it is high in organic matter and sufficient in macro and micronutrients.
But what if it isn't? What if you've got dead soil, like mine, or rock hard clay, or soil (also like mine) that has been leached of nutrients? Again, there are two projects here - the first is the short term building of soil so that you can get to gardening. The second is the long term maintenence of soil health, and the addition of more organic matter, so that eventually, your soil can hold enough organic matter to save the world - or at least sequester a bit of carbon. Plus, things will grow better. Win-win.
My favorite way to build soil on something that is completely unworkable is the lasagna method, which is pretty much sheet mulching (covering the soil with newspaper or cardboard, then laying on as much organic material as you've got, with some dirt or compost on it. This makes raised beds, which is good if what you have is either wet or rock hard, or if you are, say putting your dirt on gravel or something toxic. It might be tough in a dry, hot climate though - raised beds dry out and warm up in the spring earlier, and keeping them wet might be tough. In that case, you might consider digging into the ground, creating sunken beds with the same mixture. We use leaves, grass clippings and farm bedding as the main ingredients in our lasagna beds, with a layer of find compost on top if I'm starting seeds in it.
If you need to amend soil, you'll have the choice of synthetic or natural soil amendments. Generally speaking, you'll want the natural ones. I'm not a complete organic purist - I think there are times when artificial fertilizer use is justified. But there's a price to be paid for its use, and care is needed - otherwise you can end up contaminating your water supply, wasting your money and depleting your soil overall. I don't generally use synthetic fertilizers, and if I were to use them, I'd use them only on untilled soil with plenty of organic matter added, in small and precise quantities. Most of the value of artificial fertilizers is presently lost into waterways and various other sites of contamination.
You can buy an organic fertilizer mix, or you can make your own. I generally use a mix of alfalfa meal, rock phosphate, and wood ashes, along with greensand and kelp, as well as occasionally special additions to deal with soil types or plant special needs. But I don't know about you, but I can't mine rock phosphate from my property, nor do I produce enough alfalfa to fertilize my garden. So this is not a long-term sustainable project. I use these amendments sparingly, where they are needed to bring soils up to basic fertility.
Then, we try to keep the fertility there. That means cover cropping a portion of our garden every year, integrating dynamic accumulator plants into our plantings (these are plants that bring up nutrients from the subsoil), undercropping with nitrogen fixers (these plants fix nitrogen from the air), mulching (we try to grow as much of our own mulch as possible in place - another good use for undercropping - a nice planting of buckwheat under tomatoes, or white clover under garlic can provide a living mulch and then the next planting cycle's mulching materials), and the heavy application of organic material - that is, compost and composted animal manures.
Every time we take something off of the soil, we are removing nutrients from our soil, and depleting, to some degree, the organic material available to them. High levels of organic material are essential for soil life and health - so faced with dead soil, the first thing I did was put my turkey poults in a chicken tractor on top of the border for a few days. The easiest way to move the poop to the garden beds is sometimes to move the poop makers there . Now since this was raw manure, I made sure there was plenty of bedding, and I wasn't planting food plants there right away. Had I needed to use it immediately, I would have switched to already composted manure, and gotten out the wheelbarrow.
Next, I planted the foundation plantings to annual alfalfa, since it was already summer, and warm. Different cover crops are specific to different seasons - they are spring, summer or fall sown. You sow the fall crops to overwinter - to hold soil in place, and add organic material. Winter rye, hairy vetch, fava beans (in some climates) are all common winter sown cover crops. Spring sown crops are generally cut down in summer, and either stay in place all season (things like red clover), providing multiple doses of fertility and green material, or they are cut down (oats, say) to provide organic material for the fall garden. Summer crops (buckwheat, annual alfalfa) can go in after the peas or the early lettuce, and grow fast and fill the space until fall. For a site you don't plan to get to for a year or two, perennial crops can do a lot to regenerate soil.
Cover cropping is very place specific - the best crops are specific to your climate, seasons and locality, so talk to your cooperative extension. They are a powerful tool for building fertility, adding organic matter and improving soil, and one that is worth getting to know.
My goal in the long term is for these beds to provide a warm, dry, moderately fertile site for mediterranean herbs and a few flowering perennials. That is, I wasn't trying to produce fertility for growing heavy feeders, like greens or corn. So after the alfalfa, I added some greensand and kelp, a light layer of compost, and planted into the mulch I'd already established. In went lavender, oregano, several marjorams and thymes, a rosemary that probably didn't survive the winter this year, and some plants that like or tolerate similar conditions of slightly dry soil, lots of sun and only moderate fertility - catmint, echinops and malva. And they've thrived.
Many perennial plants make wonderful fertility enhancers to annual gardens - whether perennial nitrogen fixing shrubs, whose leaf litter and root nodes enhance the trees and perennial plantings around them, comfrey and stinging nettle which can be cut for mulch or compost, small trees integrated into garden sites to provide leaf mulch, or perennial living mulches. This is one of those things that has potentially enormous long term yields, and has really only begun to be explored in a deep way.
The best soils for sequestering organic matter will be those that are in perennial plantings, that have constant inputs of organic matter - these include forests that are enriched yearly by leaf drops, permanent pastures which are manured by grazing animals (It has been calculated that Joel Salatin's grazed pastures sequester as much carbon as a similarly sized forest after decades of grazing), and perennial gardens that are carefully managed to provide their own needs.
I maintain fertility in the perennial planting I established in these beds by the occasional dumping of animal bedding on the ground, permanent mulch, wood ashes from our stove, and a strewing of kelp. I've also grown an annual crop of chamomile, a good dynamic accumulator, and left everything but the flowerheads in place. I give the whole thing an occasional boost of nitrogen by dumping dilute urine over it - urine is safe unless you have tularemia (in which case you have worse problems than not being able to fertilize with your pee) and diluted 1-7 (1-10 if you don't drink enough), it provides a real boost to plants. To be paranoid stop doing so 10 days before harvest.
More demanding annual feeders get composted chicken or goat manure, plant compost, weed and manure teas. Other plants might also get living mulches, and I rotate plants as wisely and carefully as I can, following the heavy feeders with nitrogen fixers or light feeders undersown with nitrogen fixing cover crops. My whole garden gets rotating quantities of worm casting to supplement the soil and improve its texture.
Meanwhile, in maintaining, we try to put back what we take off. Crop residues are left in place, either chopped down and incorporated into the permanent mulch or they are burned in our woodstove (for heavy, dense stalks) and returned as ash. Some of the nitrogen is returned in the form of urine. We mulch as much as possible with our own mulches - grass clippings, leaves and plants grown for compost or as mulch plants. We try not to steal too much from any one other place - but we gratefuly take things people discard, like leaves from yards when we venture into suburbia, or horse manure from our horse-keeping neighbors.
Animal manures have a very powerful role in gardening - in a perfect world, we'd compost all human manures until they were thoroughly pathogen free, and restore the soil with what we take off. But whether this is safe is debatable, and anyone who shares food will not want to risk a lawsuit. So composted animals manures are a powerful tool for maintaining fertility - one of the reasons that polycultures of animals and plants are generally more effective than either alone. We use composted human manures only on decorative and tree plantings.
Two particular ways of maintaining fertility deserve mention here - fungal soil support, by mycorrhizae (tiny fungus that colonize the soil) and biochar. Mycorrhizae have a symbiotic relationship with the roots of many plants, and can enhance the ability to plants to uptake nutrients and deal with water stress among other things. Many soils are fungi deficient, and an application of mycorrhizae can improve your plants ability to absorb the nutrients in your soil.
Biochar/Terra Preta is a fascinating subject - and one still uncertain. Terra Preta involves adding plant based charcoal (ie, not the briquets at the grocery store) to your soil. What this does is still a matter of speculation - it isn't clear, for example, whether the charcoal itself or the organic processes it enables are actually what creates the rich soil involved. Nor is it clear that all soils respond equally well to terra preta inputs - for example a study found that boreal forest soils did not seem to respond to biochar applications. That said, however, there have been some fascinating results - biochar supplemented soils seem to stimulate nitrogen fixing in legumes, for example, and while charcoal supplemented soils enable plants to take up more minerals, the soils deplete more slowly. This is a project still in the exploration stages, but one that home gardeners and small farmers can contribute to with experimentation.
We're not a closed circle by any means - we still take advantage, as long as they are available and we can afford them, of valuable amendments. But the idea is to lose as little as possible, while getting the best possible balance between improved soil, the health of the world, and a system in which you need to bring in a little less from offsite each year. This, it seems, is an entirely achievable goal.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator
Energy Storage Technologies - White Paper
Demand for energy storage solutions is expected to further benefit from the growing trends in the adoption of renewable energy generation and microgrid solutions. The significant public and private investments currently being made are also expected to bolster the growth of energy storage solutions in the utility sector. However, a number of challenges remain, including the need to further improve the cost/performance of current technologies, the relative lack of technical and commercial maturity of many energy storage solutions, and regulatory and monetization issues.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator
Farmers Now Delivering Biomass To POET's Project LIBERTY Storage Site
[WizardRSS: unable to retrieve full-text content]Farmers are now delivering biomass bales to POET's 22-acre storage site in Emmetsburg, Iowa, the future home of the 25 million-gallon-per-year cellulosic ethanol plant dubbed "Project LIBERTY."Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Energy Generator
Magnetic Generators
Free Energy Home
Home Power Generator
Green Energy
Energy security
It has become popular to talk about climate change policy in terms of energy security. Rather than saying we need more renewables, efficient building and public transport to meet climate change targets we now say that we need them to achieve energy security.
This trend is likely to continue. In November the British Government will introduce the Energy Security and Green Economy�Bill.�Eager to influence and improve the Act, development NGOs with climate campaigns and environmental organisations will have to talk about what they want in terms of energy security. If we want to be part of the debate we will have to stop calling for cuts in emissions to protect the world's most vulnerable people. We will have to start saying we must get more energy from renewables to increase energy security.?This might appear no different. Just another way of talking about the same thing. Both could involve investing in renewables, reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn, building efficient buildings.
But when we talk about security we mean a world of peace and stability. For us security means peace-building. It means resolving conflicts, not military intervention. It means producing our own energy rather than fighting wars to secure oil and gas from other countries. We waved our ?no war for oil? placards in the run up to the Iraq war. For us security means addressing the root causes of instability. We mean changing the things that make the world unstable and prone to conflict: climate change, competition over resources, the gap between rich and poor. When we talk to people about energy security we imagine that they share this vision.
But we forget that there are other ways of looking at security. And our vision of security is not the dominant one. The approach that most western governments have to security is the exact opposite. Stability is achieved through the vigorous use of force. ?Rogue nations? are contained by military intervention. Insurgents and rebels are contained by special forces. Access to secure supplies of energy is achieved through war. The aim is to keep a lid on instability. Not to question why that instability exists or to do anything about it. The prime example of this approach to security is the ?War on Terror?.
Perhaps we mistakenly think when we talk to people about energy security they buy into our definition of security. Let's not be naive. There is a reason they didn't listen when we talked about preventing drought, floods and disappearing islands. There is a reason they didn't listen when we talked about a just deal in Copenhagen, indigenous land rights and living within our environmental means. It?s because all of these things are inconsistent with their approach to security. In a world with a safe climate, economic justice and fair access to natural resources, their approach to security would be irrelevant.
When nowadays we talk about what we want in terms of energy security what we are actually saying is this: our vision for a renewably powered country is consistent with your vision for containing instability using violence. Our vision for energy efficient homes is consistent with your vision for military intervention. Let?s increase energy security by using renewables, but let?s also secure new energy reserves using force. Crucially we say our vision for energy security does not challenge your approach to global security. Our vision for energy security does not require you to do anything about the actually causes of instability and violence.
Without thinking we?ve given our support to an approach to dealing with the world?s problems that goes completely against our values. The situation is likely to get worse in the run up to the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill. In being forced to frame our demands for better climate policy in terms of energy security, our efforts to improve the Bill will unwittingly add force to a broader programme that is completely at odds with what we believe.
So what should we do? We must be explicit about why we want good domestic climate and energy policy. Let?s say that it is needed to achieve peace and stability. Let?s say that climate change and competition for dwindling energy reserves are both causes of instability and violence. We should make it clear that there the other causes of instability and violence - like nuclear proliferation and inequality - need to be dealt with too. Finally let?s be very clear that our vision for renewables and good domestic climate policy is totally inconsistent with the dominant approach to security.
Alex is a campaigner and activist on climate change and energy issues.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator
This trend is likely to continue. In November the British Government will introduce the Energy Security and Green Economy�Bill.�Eager to influence and improve the Act, development NGOs with climate campaigns and environmental organisations will have to talk about what they want in terms of energy security. If we want to be part of the debate we will have to stop calling for cuts in emissions to protect the world's most vulnerable people. We will have to start saying we must get more energy from renewables to increase energy security.?This might appear no different. Just another way of talking about the same thing. Both could involve investing in renewables, reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn, building efficient buildings.
But when we talk about security we mean a world of peace and stability. For us security means peace-building. It means resolving conflicts, not military intervention. It means producing our own energy rather than fighting wars to secure oil and gas from other countries. We waved our ?no war for oil? placards in the run up to the Iraq war. For us security means addressing the root causes of instability. We mean changing the things that make the world unstable and prone to conflict: climate change, competition over resources, the gap between rich and poor. When we talk to people about energy security we imagine that they share this vision.
But we forget that there are other ways of looking at security. And our vision of security is not the dominant one. The approach that most western governments have to security is the exact opposite. Stability is achieved through the vigorous use of force. ?Rogue nations? are contained by military intervention. Insurgents and rebels are contained by special forces. Access to secure supplies of energy is achieved through war. The aim is to keep a lid on instability. Not to question why that instability exists or to do anything about it. The prime example of this approach to security is the ?War on Terror?.
Perhaps we mistakenly think when we talk to people about energy security they buy into our definition of security. Let's not be naive. There is a reason they didn't listen when we talked about preventing drought, floods and disappearing islands. There is a reason they didn't listen when we talked about a just deal in Copenhagen, indigenous land rights and living within our environmental means. It?s because all of these things are inconsistent with their approach to security. In a world with a safe climate, economic justice and fair access to natural resources, their approach to security would be irrelevant.
When nowadays we talk about what we want in terms of energy security what we are actually saying is this: our vision for a renewably powered country is consistent with your vision for containing instability using violence. Our vision for energy efficient homes is consistent with your vision for military intervention. Let?s increase energy security by using renewables, but let?s also secure new energy reserves using force. Crucially we say our vision for energy security does not challenge your approach to global security. Our vision for energy security does not require you to do anything about the actually causes of instability and violence.
Without thinking we?ve given our support to an approach to dealing with the world?s problems that goes completely against our values. The situation is likely to get worse in the run up to the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill. In being forced to frame our demands for better climate policy in terms of energy security, our efforts to improve the Bill will unwittingly add force to a broader programme that is completely at odds with what we believe.
So what should we do? We must be explicit about why we want good domestic climate and energy policy. Let?s say that it is needed to achieve peace and stability. Let?s say that climate change and competition for dwindling energy reserves are both causes of instability and violence. We should make it clear that there the other causes of instability and violence - like nuclear proliferation and inequality - need to be dealt with too. Finally let?s be very clear that our vision for renewables and good domestic climate policy is totally inconsistent with the dominant approach to security.
Alex is a campaigner and activist on climate change and energy issues.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Say Hello to Stricter TV Standards
Two years ago, I described the ENERGY STAR� designation for television sets. Last month I explained how the Federal Trade Commission is requiring manufacturers to place yellow EnergyGuide labels on all television sets beginning later this year.
This year?2011?is going to be another banner year for consumers shopping for a new television set. Standards are being tightened. No, not TV broadcasting standards, but the energy efficiency standards for television sets. If you and/or your kids watch a lot of television, this could take a nice slice off of your electricity bills when you buy a new TV.
California passed legislation last year to set higher energy conservation standards for television sets sold within the state of California. Stricter standards went into effect with the ringing in of the New Year. The new 2011 standards are estimated to reduce energy consumption of the average new television set by about a third. Stricter energy conservation standards governing maximum in-use power consumption go into effect on January 1, 2013. The 2011/2013 standards are estimated to cut total TV energy consumption almost in half compared to pre-2011 models.
As of late 2009, more than a thousand TV models met the 2011 standards, comprising all of the technologies that you've come to enjoy, including plasma and LCD. Hundreds of models already meet the 2013 standards. Manufacturers have been making a lot of effort over the past couple of years to reduce the power consumption of TVs. For example, LED (light emitting diode) technology is expected to be the leading backlight technology for LCD TV sets sold throughout the United States in 2011. This bodes well for consumers, since LED technology is much more energy efficient than the lighting source common in older sets.
The in-use power consumption, in watts, must be marked, permanently and legibly, on an accessible and conspicuous place on each new TV set sold in California that was manufactured on or after January 1, 2011. Moreover, any publication, website, document, or retail display advertising the sale in California of a television set manufactured on or after January 1, 2011, and that includes a description of the physical dimensions of the television must include the identical in-use power consumption, in watts, immediately following and in the same font and same font size as the description of the physical dimensions. Thus, consumers nationwide will be able to view this energy consumption information when surfing certain websites, making it easier to compare the energy consumption of different models.
Now, unless you live in California, or buy your television from a merchant in California, you aren't directly affected. However, there's a saying in the energy arena that goes something like this: As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. Federal regulations on energy conservation standards are coming that will help all U.S. consumers.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is currently taking the steps required to ensure that a test procedure and standard are modernized and established to capture the energy consumption of current television sets. After receiving and evaluating comments on the proposal, DOE may proceed with establishing a test procedure and nation-wide energy efficiency standard for television sets.
John Lippert is an employee of Energy Enterprise Solutions, a contractor for EERE. He assists with technical reviews of content on the Energy Savers website.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator Magnetic Energy Generator
Steven Chu Wants To Hear From You
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu would like to hear directly from you about wh...
Powered By WizardRSSHome Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity
Powered By WizardRSSHome Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity
Departments of Energy and Commerce Announce New Partnership to Further Cooperation on Renewable Energy Modeling and Forecasting
This is an excerpt from EERE Network News, a weekly electronic newsletter.
January 24, 2011
The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Commerce today announced a new agreement to further collaboration between the agencies on renewable energy modeling and weather forecasting, which will help enable the nation's renewable energy resources to be used more effectively by business and entrepreneurs. The Memorandum of Understanding signed by Acting Under Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., will encourage the two agencies to work together to develop and disseminate weather and climate information needed for renewable energy technologies that are dependent on short-term weather and longer-term climate trends. Better information on weather patterns and improved modeling of the variability of the wind, sun, water, ocean currents, and other sources of renewable energy will ultimately increase the country's ability to efficiently and reliably integrate renewable energy into the electrical grid.
"This collaboration will bring together scientists and experts across the federal government to support our efforts to integrate renewable energy into our power system," said Zoi. "By providing us with a deeper understanding of how weather impacts the generation of renewable energy, this partnership will help to more effectively deploy these important resources across America."
"Our ability to increase America's supply of renewable energy is based in part on our ability to predict and harness precipitation, wind, and cloud patterns," said Lubchenco. "Observations, forecasts, and climate information tailored to the needs of the renewable energy industry will promote growth of this vital sector."
The agreement announced today builds on reports from both agencies that recognize the need for improved meteorological, oceanic, and climatological observations, modeling, and forecasting to expand the efficient use of renewable energy sources and further integrate these energy sources into the U.S. energy system. For example, DOE's 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report identifies several key research areas, such as improved wind forecasting techniques, that would enhance electrical grid system operations. NOAA's Next Generation Strategic Plan states that NOAA will develop integrated environmental information services for the unique needs of weather-sensitive sectors, including solar, wind, and oceanographic information critical to the development, production, and transmission of renewable energy.
The partnership will help renewable energy system designers, operators, and electric power system administrators in improving the cost effectiveness and reliability of weather-dependent renewable energy technologies. The collaboration includes a working group from DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that will identify areas for continued focus and research and help lay out next steps for improving the efficiency of renewable resources and better integrating renewable energy sources onto the electrical grid.
The group will produce an Action Plan in the coming months that will address:
Improving renewable resource characterization models and methodologies for optimizing system reliability and performance
Advancing meteorological and oceanic forecasting technologies, models and methodologies
Defining national weather and oceanic monitoring systems needed to support renewable energy
Predicting climate effects on renewable energy resources
Coordinating both public and private sector contributions to addressing renewable resource needs.
Under the partnership, both agencies agree to provide the necessary resources to coordinate or carry out the designated tasks outlined in the Action Plan.
To learn more about wind as a renewable energy source, please visit DOE's Wind Program website.
Read more on NOAA's renewable energy program.
See the full text of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources
January 24, 2011
The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Commerce today announced a new agreement to further collaboration between the agencies on renewable energy modeling and weather forecasting, which will help enable the nation's renewable energy resources to be used more effectively by business and entrepreneurs. The Memorandum of Understanding signed by Acting Under Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., will encourage the two agencies to work together to develop and disseminate weather and climate information needed for renewable energy technologies that are dependent on short-term weather and longer-term climate trends. Better information on weather patterns and improved modeling of the variability of the wind, sun, water, ocean currents, and other sources of renewable energy will ultimately increase the country's ability to efficiently and reliably integrate renewable energy into the electrical grid.
"This collaboration will bring together scientists and experts across the federal government to support our efforts to integrate renewable energy into our power system," said Zoi. "By providing us with a deeper understanding of how weather impacts the generation of renewable energy, this partnership will help to more effectively deploy these important resources across America."
"Our ability to increase America's supply of renewable energy is based in part on our ability to predict and harness precipitation, wind, and cloud patterns," said Lubchenco. "Observations, forecasts, and climate information tailored to the needs of the renewable energy industry will promote growth of this vital sector."
The agreement announced today builds on reports from both agencies that recognize the need for improved meteorological, oceanic, and climatological observations, modeling, and forecasting to expand the efficient use of renewable energy sources and further integrate these energy sources into the U.S. energy system. For example, DOE's 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report identifies several key research areas, such as improved wind forecasting techniques, that would enhance electrical grid system operations. NOAA's Next Generation Strategic Plan states that NOAA will develop integrated environmental information services for the unique needs of weather-sensitive sectors, including solar, wind, and oceanographic information critical to the development, production, and transmission of renewable energy.
The partnership will help renewable energy system designers, operators, and electric power system administrators in improving the cost effectiveness and reliability of weather-dependent renewable energy technologies. The collaboration includes a working group from DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that will identify areas for continued focus and research and help lay out next steps for improving the efficiency of renewable resources and better integrating renewable energy sources onto the electrical grid.
The group will produce an Action Plan in the coming months that will address:
Improving renewable resource characterization models and methodologies for optimizing system reliability and performance
Advancing meteorological and oceanic forecasting technologies, models and methodologies
Defining national weather and oceanic monitoring systems needed to support renewable energy
Predicting climate effects on renewable energy resources
Coordinating both public and private sector contributions to addressing renewable resource needs.
Under the partnership, both agencies agree to provide the necessary resources to coordinate or carry out the designated tasks outlined in the Action Plan.
To learn more about wind as a renewable energy source, please visit DOE's Wind Program website.
Read more on NOAA's renewable energy program.
See the full text of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy Green Energy Sources
London shopping centre uses Europe's largest heat pump
A shopping centre in London has officially started to use the largest geothermal heat pump in Europe. Climate change minister Greg Barker unveiled the system, which will heat and cool One New Change in the heart of the City.The pipework is 60km long and it is hoped that it will reduce the carbon emissions of the building by at least ten per cent and save �300,000 on energy bills every year, its owners say.On opening the renewable energy technology, Mr Barker said: "This is British innovation at its best, using the earth's natural resources to solve our energy needs."Extracting warmth from the ground underneath London will help save on the building's heating bills and will cut carbon."In addition to the large-scale system, the building has solar-controlled glass, reducing the need for air conditioning, and green roof terraces to encourage biodiversity.It has also received an 'excellent' sustainability rating under the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, which could signal the future of commercial buildings in achieving sustainability and reducing carbon emissions.Posted by Emily Thomas Sign up for regular email updates to help you save money and energy
For more information please see: One New Change� The news feeds on this site are independently provided by Adfero Limited � and do not represent the views or opinions of the Energy Saving Trust.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator
For more information please see: One New Change� The news feeds on this site are independently provided by Adfero Limited � and do not represent the views or opinions of the Energy Saving Trust.
Powered By WizardRSSGreen Energy Green Energy Sources Magnetic Generator Cheap Electricity Free Energy Generator
Clean-energy collaboration could enhance U.S.-China relations
Submitted on 01/20/11, 11:28 AM | Source Reuters
Cooperation on clean energy could be a high point in U.S.-China relations leading to benefits for both countries, government and business officials said ahead of a summit between Chinese President Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama. Disputes between the world's two largest economies and energy consumers over China's wind power subsidies and its slowdown in exports of rare earths minerals, used in everything from wind turbines to cell phones, have dominated headlines in recent months. As China tries to transform its economy from the manufacturing of cheap goods into one developing and distributing sophisticated technologies, such as clean energy, spats over intellectual property rights have already troubled trade relations between the two countries. But pressure on both countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reel in fossil fuel demand may push them to overcome these differences.
Powered By WizardRSSMagnetic Energy Generator Magnetic Generators Free Energy Home Home Power Generator Green Energy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)