Home › Blog › Page 1608

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

For those of you wishing to reconnect from old friends from highschool and college, I most certainly recommend setting up a website like 2GreenEnergy. It brings long-lost, but much loved old friends out of the woodwork.  Perhaps the best aspect of all this new communication is that these folks seem so much more optimistic about our prospects for a bright future than most of the people I run into on a day-to-day basis.

Here’s a post from Bruce Wilson, with whom I attended kindergarten (just the other day, in 1960), and graduated from the same school 13 years later, who commented on a recent post:

Apollo Alliance as an organization that asks us to make a national agenda that is based on sustainability. They use the Apollo program as an example of how much we can achieve when we set an ambitious national agenda. Kennedy aimed for us to get to the moon in ten years and we got there in nine! A national agenda of achieving a sustainable energy future will produce innovation we can not imagine.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

I can understand that certain issues break down along liberal/conservative lines: abortion, health care reform, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, etc.  But conservatives almost universally reject the theory of global warming, and, for reasons I’ll get to shortly, that surprises me. 

I hope you’ll read the article I’ve linked here, explaining how Robert Hurt, who won Tom Perriello’s House seat in Virginia, says clean-energy legislation would fail to “do anything except harm people.” The tea party’s “Contract From America” calls proposed climate policies “costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.” (more…)

Tagged with: ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

Here’s a conversation I’m having with a reader in Chile that I thought others may find interesting. Francisco Gajardo, who gave me permission to publish this, writes:

Hi Craig,

First of all, I must congratulate you for such a great job on Renewable Energy Facts and Fantasies, and the 3 Brass Tacks.

Although I’m a chemical & software engineer, I actually live on a farm in southern Chile, and I want to share with you some issues that might be interesting to you.

First, as a country we are net importers of fossil fuels and the largest copper exporter of the world, strongly linking the exchange rate with the copper (and obviously, oil, since copper is quoted at the London Metal Exchange) price: copper goes up, dollar goes down. The bad news is that we are an exports-based economy (copper, molybdenum, lithium, fruits, wine, salmon, fishmeal, lumber, cellulose, etc.) so although a high copper price is great for the government because of taxes and royalties, it’s at the cost of slashing the rest of our economy which, barring rocks, is made of renewable stuff. (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

When I did this Skype-based interview with EVWorld.com editor Bill Moore the other day, I was again reminded of the regional differences in culture in our country.  Yes, it’s cliche’, but Bill’s from Omaha, and people from places like that really do tend to be honest, unpretentious, mean-what-you-say types. And, although I did most of the talking in the interview, I think his genuine nature comes across immediately.

I receive proof of Bill’s gentlemanliness constantly.  When I go to conferences and introduce myself to people who don’t know 2GreenEnergy, I quickly mention EVWorld (it’s been around since the mid-1990s) and I tell them that I’m proud to be Bill Moore’s partner in the enterprise.  I’ve yet to meet anyone who didn’t instantly respect me for having had the common sense and good taste for having come on board.

I’m at a loss to understand the downside of this understated way of life, nor the upside of being a loudmouth nouveau riche jerk.  I know there are people who want to act like Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan, but I just can’t understand why.

Tagged with: , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Energy Storage

I am getting a head start on my NH3 Fuel Association internship. I will be working on a commercialization roadmap. I am searching for data and knowledge that could possibly go in to this roadmap.

As such, a contact at the IPFW (Indiana University/Purdue University, Fort Wayne) Information Analytics and Visualization Center expressed interest in my assembling a research proposal for applying network growth and development knowledge to being able to model where ammonia fuel/energy carrier infrastructure commercialization opportunities may emerge with greatest ease on top of and from older infrastructure networks. This could greatly increase the efficiency of future ammonia technology commercialization. But I am seeking additional partners. Would anyone like to help? If you would, please contact me by early January, as we are planning a meeting for early January to discuss this research project.

If interested in this project, please contact me soon through the “Contact” option at my “Model Sustainable Cities” website at http://modelsustainablecities.weebly.com Thank you.

Regards,
Daniel Miller

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

I’m going through an interesting exercise that I thought I’d share. In preparation for my upcoming speaking tour for my book on renewables, I’m working with some associates to “package” myself, and develop an online press kit.

As I’ve known for some time, the best overall strategy is to position one’s topic in the context of breaking news — relating the subject to the issues that are already on people’s minds. This really shouldn’t be too great a stretch, as renewables legitimately has touch-points into many dozens of different areas of great concern to anyone paying attention. I suppose I’m just lucky that the book is on clean energy and not a collection of recipes for baked chicken or some such.

I feel fairly well prepared to talk at a high level on the relationship between clean energy and any of the following, and I’ll certainly do some additional research to solidify my grasp before I go in to discuss: (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Energy Storage

(continued from an earlier article)

Down in the Quantum World

Nano particles are less than 100 nanomicrons in width, meaning that a human hair is approximately 80,000nm wide. Down at the molecular level, materials behave differently to the way they behave in larger volumes. Because so little is known about material behaviour at nano level at the International Forum on Chemical Safety at Dakar in 2008, 71 governments and 12 international organizations recommended the application of the Precautionary Principle to it. The principle states that anyone proposing a new initiative in a risky area must prove their initiative is safe before they carry it out.

Yet, according to the Friends of the Earth report, regulatory systems in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan and other countries treat all particles the same; that is, they do not recognise that nanoparticles of familiar substances may have novel properties and novel risks. Carbon nanotubes for use in electronics, energy applications and vehicle parts may be associated with the cancer mesothelioma, for example. Although many nanomaterials now in commercial use pose greater toxicity risks than the same materials in larger particle form, if a substance has been approved in bulk form, it remains legal to sell it in nano form. (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

I have to say that I’m befuddled by all the electric vehicle bashing. Here’s an article from the Washington Post that really lays it on with a trowel. While author Charles Lane admits “the administration’s objectives – reducing carbon emissions and U.S. dependence on foreign oil – are legitimate,” he quickly goes back to the main theme: “But $5 billion wasted on electrics is $5 billion that cannot be used to meet these goals.”

The article quotes experts who agree, but (what a surprise) scrupulously avoids those that don’t.

Every time I see something like this, I think: Well, this most certainly could be more propaganda from the extremely powerful interests, i.e., the traditional energy world, who want to see electrics fail – make that “who desperately need to see electrics fail.”  But the part of me that is not so cynical honestly tries to make sense of this. (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

I have a great deal of sympathy for people who struggle with the math and logic of renewables. After all, I’m one of them.

It’s not that I’m bad at math per se; rather, it’s that there are dozens of different ways to use numerical calculations to compute the relative value of each of our energy alternatives. To illustrate the point, here’s an excerpt from a Washington Post article earlier this year whose purpose was to dispel five myths concerning clean energy:

Myth #1: Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations.

But exactly how concerned should the reader be that a PV array is 8 times less efficient per square meter than a nuclear power plant? Does this have any real meaning? I’m not sure the issue with power plants is that we’re running out of room for them. Isn’t it a far more important concern, by a factor of maybe a thousand, that our current energy solutions produce waste products that are destroying the planet? (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Sustainability

Frequent blogger Cameron Atwood writes about the skyrocketing rates of cancer in our world, writing:

I want to call readers’ attention to:

http://www.gotapex.com/cooking-and-food-subforum/167290-100-years-of-cancer-history.html

…where there is an attached attempt to minimize but not dispute the data…

…and here:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_more_cancer_today_than_hundred_years_ago

…where the information is left to stand on its own.

In terms of concretely sourced data:

According to the WHO, 23.65% of all deaths in 2002 were from cancer worldwide.  13.6 million people died of cancer that year.

That data is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

According to the CDC there were 64 cancer deaths per 100,000 people in the US in 1900, and in 1958 there were 146.8 per 100,000 – more than double. By 1994 the rate of death from cancer in the US was 205.2 per 100,000 – more than triple the 1900 rate.

Those stats are recorded here:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf

I hope readers find this information helpful.

 

I completely agree with this. But here’s a challenge for you. Ask a few MDs and RNs about this phenomenon (which I’ve done dozens of times over the 20 years or so). You’ll get the same answer with laser-like consistency: cancer 100 years ago was just as prevalent, but it was almost never diagnosed, and most people who would died from cancer had they lived longer died younger due to other causes, e.g., gunfights, accidents, or other diseases.

I say bull-hockey. Is it the pseudo-food we eat, the toxins we breathe, the electromagnetic fields we live in 24/7/365 – or some combination of those — and perhaps other environmental pathogens?  I don’t know, but I find it astonishing that any educated person could suggest that our modern lifestyle is not causing cancer.

As wrote in the conclusion of my book:

I predict that it will become increasingly clear that the energy companies have acted very poorly in creating and covering up an enormous world health hazard. I forecast that in 50 years, these companies will be subjected to the same disdain that the tobacco industry is receiving today in terms of class-action lawsuits and broad societal condemnation……Over the coming decade, you’ll see all manner of smoking guns around deliberately withheld information related to fossil fuels and public health.

　

　

　

Tagged with: , , ,