Can humanity bring pollution under control, before it's too late? Would you belive the answer is, "Yes, it's likely".

I hate arguing about "climate change". Because whether you belive we are causing it, or whether you believe it's a natural occurance (as pre industrial history supports), it doesn't change the facts that:

a.) Pollution is bad; it kills us. And...

b.) Even if climate change is a natural cycle doing it's thing, our pollution could make the changes even more severe. Does anyone want, or need that?

What I like about the following video is, that it looks at current trends, with an eye to the big picture. What it sees, is more optimistic than you might expect.

Now of course, if Russia or China drags us into WWIII... but that's another story. This story is, we need not die of pollution. Nice to hear some good news, for a change.

     

"Wave Power" off of the Oregon Coastline

Oregon wave power project gets green light to go forward

Wave power developers planning a project off the Oregon Coast now have the nation's only federal permit to develop a commercial wave power park.

Ocean Power Technologies Inc., based in Pennington, N.J., said Monday it will deploy the first buoy for testing sometime this year off Reedsport.

Charles Dunleavy, CEO of the publicly held company, said it hopes to have the country's first commercial wave power park online within two or three years of securing full financing.

The project will include 10 buoys anchored 2 1/2 miles off the coast and covering about 30 acres. They will produce 1.5 megawatts — enough to power about 1,000 homes. An undersea cable will carry the power to a site slated for the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, and connect to the grid at a substation in Gardiner.

Belinda Batten, director of the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Facility and a professor of mechanical energy at Oregon State University, said the Ocean Power facility is small by European standards but presents a big step forward in development of alternative energy from the ocean in the U.S.

The Oregon Coast has become a hotspot for wave power research and development. Waves are bigger on the West Coast than the East Coast by virtue of the prevailing westerly winds, and waves get bigger the farther they are from the equator, Batten said.

She noted that Atmocean Inc., in Santa Fe, N.M., plans to test three buoys this year off Coos Bay; the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Facility last weekend towed out to sea near Newport the nation's first publicly available wave power test facility, called Ocean Sentinel; a wave power generator from New Zealand is to be towed out to the test facility this week; and Oregon State is looking for a site to build a larger grid-connected test facility known as the Pacific Marine Energy Center, which would be patterned after the European Marine Energy Center in Scotland.

[...]

The cylindrical buoy harnesses the power of the ocean's waves through a float encircling it. The float goes up and down with the water while the buoy remains relatively stable. That motion is transferred to turning a generator, which produces electricity.

The final cost of the project is not determined, Dunleavy said. The company has a $4.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, $420,000 from the Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, and a state business energy tax credit worth $900,000. [...]

"... The final cost of the project is not determined..." Gosh. Ya just hope it doesn't turn out to be another Solyndra, flushing tax dollars down the drain.

Here is a picture of one of the bouys on a dock in Scotland. They are HUGE:

Fossil Fuels: They've only just begun

I posted earlier about Peak Oil/increased-demand theory , causing shortages. But the following article from Salon.com changes all of that. It maintains that solar and wind power are endangered, not fossil fuels, which are in fact poised to really start to kick in:

Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong
The future of energy is not what you think it is

[...] it appears that the prophets of an age of renewable energy following Peak Oil got things backwards. We may be living in the era of Peak Renewables, which will be followed by a very long Age of Fossil Fuels that has only just begun.

Thanks to shale oil and natural gas, and new technologies that not only make them more easily available world-wide, but make them a cleaner alternative to coal. Read the whole thing, it's very thorough. It explains it's premise in detail, and presents a very compelling case. Gosh and Golly. Whodathunkit?
     

Wind Power from... the Jet Stream?

Many believe it's possible, and even more viable than land based turbines:

Companies look for power way, way up in the sky

BOSTON – The world's strongest winds race high in the sky, but that doesn't mean they're out of reach as a potentially potent energy source.

Flying, swooping and floating turbines are being developed to turn high-altitude winds into electricity.

The challenges are huge, but the potential is immense. Scientists estimate the energy in the jet streams is 100 times the amount of power used worldwide annually.

Cristina Archer, an atmospheric scientist at the California State University in Chico, said there's "not a doubt anymore" that high-altitude winds will be tapped for power.

"This can be done, it can work," she said.

The question is, when? Some companies project their technology will hit the market by the middle of the decade, but Fort Felker at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says the industry is 10 years away from making a meaningful contribution to the nation's electricity demands.

[...]

The lure of high-altitude wind is simple: Wind speed generally increases with its height above the ground as surface friction diminishes. Each time wind speed doubles, the amount of energy it theoretically holds multiplies by eight times.

The world's most powerful winds circulate in the jet streams, which are found four to 10 miles off the ground and carry winds that regularly break 100 miles per hour.

The dream is to eventually tap the jet streams, but high-altitude wind companies are focusing for now below a 2,000-foot ceiling, above which complex federal air-space restrictions kick in. Adam Rein, co-founder of the Boston company Altaeros Energies, said his company calculates winds at the 2,000 foot level are up to 2 1/2 times stronger than winds that can be reached by a typical 350-foot land turbine.

High-altitude wind advocates say their smaller, lightweight turbines will be far cheaper to build and deploy than windmills with huge blades and towers that must be drilled into land or the sea floor.

Those savings would mean inexpensive energy. With wide-scale use, advocates see a range of prices, from something comparable to land wind's current 9 or 10 cents per kilowatt hour down to an astonishingly low 2 cents per kilowatt hour.

"They are projecting crazy numbers," Archer said. "I'm not saying that it's true. ... But it's really the lowest, the cheapest energy source, possibly." [...]

It goes on to point out some of the obstacles that need to be overcome, but many believe it's doable and practical. Clean and cheap energy for our Brave New World.

     

"Peak Oil" and/or "Increased Demand"?

The Peak Production theory:

Peak oil

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. This concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

[...]

Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be. If political and economic changes only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak.

Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin by 2020 or later, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.[3] Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that either the peak has already occurred,[4][5][6][7] that oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur shortly.[8][9] The International Energy Agency (IEA) says production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2006.[10][11] Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a global recession was being made worse by a series of record oil prices.[12] [...]

A Dark Warning on Global Oil Demand

Many top corporate and political figures gathered in Houston on Tuesday for the annual CeraWeek conference on the outlook for energy, and they got an earful from John B. Hess, chairman and chief executive of the Hess Corporation.

“An energy crisis is coming, likely to be triggered by oil,” he predicted. “Demand is expected to grow on an annual basis by at least one million barrels per day, driven by the developing economies of the world and by a growth in transportation as we go from one billion cars today to two billion cars in 2050.”

The problem, he said, is not that the world is running out of oil. He estimated that while the world has produced one trillion barrels of oil, two trillion more remain in the ground. Meanwhile surplus oil production capacity is three billion to four million barrels a day.

But watch out for the future. “As demand grows in the next decade, we will not have the oil production capacity we will need to meet demand,” Mr. Hess said. “Supply will then have to ration demand, and prices will skyrocket – with the likely outcome of bringing the world’s economy to its knees.”

So where are oil prices going? “The $140-per-barrel oil price of three years ago was not an aberration,” he said. “It was a warning.”

Mr. Hess’s policy prescription was not surprising: he wants more drilling, including in the Gulf of Mexico, and more natural gas used in the generation of electricity, among other proposals. His stark vision of the global energy future stood out nonetheless.

Either way, Peak Oil or Increased Demand, the same end result: rationing? Are the days of abundant cheap energy about to become a thing of the past? At least in the way that we knew it be. As more energy producing sources are developed, and more efficient ways of using energy are implemented... well. I can't say exactly how it's going to turn out. But it's likely going to be different from what we have known. Another unfolding aspect of Our Brave New World.

     

I want one of these. Where can I buy one?

Not the Japanese policeman, but the emergency bicycle pedal pump he's using to manually pump gas from an underground tank.

Such a practical and sensible device could also be used, I think, to manually pump water out of my well if our power were out for a long length of time.

I did a google search for "tmc pump pedal", and I found the device here:

Emergency Pump “KP Series”

But alas, you can't buy it from the website, and I can't find an American distributor that carries it.

A search for equivalent devices didn't turn up much: you can buy plans to build your own, or look at student projects, and various other farm-quality devices, that don't seem to be commercially available.

Why are such devices not available in the USA? They could be so useful in so many ways.

Maybe we need an incentive to start making them. Such devices can also be used to generate electricity. So here is an idea.

In the 1930's, they had all those "pick and shovel" programs to make work for people. Obama can't do that now, because heavy machinery have replaced most those pick-and shovel jobs. But we could have a new kind of "job" instead.

Create tons of bicycle pump generators, and then let all the overweight people who sit around collecting welfare, pump water or generate electricity for several hours per day. They could even watch TV while they are doing it. There would be many benefits:

1.) In our nation of obese people, it would be a way to get thinner and stay healthier.

2.) Taxpayer's would actually be getting SOMETHING in return for their money.

3.) It's GREEN energy. Hooray! Placate fanatics AND get people to work!

4.) In an emergency, "pumpers" could be deployed to pump gas, water, and generate electricity to charge batteries as needed.

Isn't that what they call a win/win situation? Or does it just make too much sense? Or is it just Sunday, and I haven't drank enough coffee yet?

     

The Chevy "Volt": more "Brown" than "Green"?

Like so many things that claim to be "green", when you look at the facts, it can actually be the opposite:

Why the Volt?

[...] They (the ubiquitous “they”) tell us it’s green. Look no tailpipe! No gasoline! Is good, right?

No, Brainiac, is not good. Is bad! I’ll explain why.

First of all, the natural base price of a product is a fair guide as to how many resources went into manufacturing that product. So to make a $41,000 car consumed about 3 times the resources of making a $14,000 car. If you want true green, you should first and foremost consume less. Right out of the gate, this monster consumes more. A lot more. To say the Volt is green, you’d have to argue that, over its lifetime, it used enough less energy to make up for the disparity. Even if it ran for free, I doubt it could close the gap.

The foregoing argument could be invalidated if eventual economies of scale will bring down the price of a Dolt. But that doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

Another argument in favor of the Dolt would be that, as a plug-in device, its fuel is whatever they use at the local power station. In other words, a Dolt might be coal-powered or hydroelectric or nuclear. A conventional car is limited to gasoline. Yes, it would indeed be good to shift away from our inflexible dependence upon gasoline, which is in domestic short supply (and will continue to be, whether we drill in Alaska or not). However, we can’t afford to buy enough $41,000 cars to escape this dependency, with or without subsidies.

Let me repeat that I’m very enthusiastic about true green projects, and I’m also deeply concerned about America’s dangerous dependence upon foreign oil. But what passes for “green” is all too often wasteful and “brown”. This subsidized boondoggle will prove to be just another payoff to cronies and special interests. There will be no benefit for the taxpayers’ dollars other than a photo op for Obama and new toys for cash-laden yuppies, who will then cruise around town proclaiming how virtuous they are. [...]

If the power plant is using coal or oil to generate the electricity to charge the Volt, then it's still responsible for creating pollution, just not doing it in the immediate vicinity of the car. And how MUCH pollution is created making electricity each time the Volt is charged up, when compared to the pollution of gasoline for the same mileage? It's an important question.

I did a post previously, about the Chevy Volt. The technology is interesting, but how green is it really, for all the reasons mentioned above? Are our tax dollars are being wasted to subsidize another "feel good" project? Does it cost so much because it's being subsidized, removing the motive to make it less expensive?

I ask the last question, because the Ford Motor company is going to release an electric Ford Focus model in 2011, and it's expected to be considerable cheaper ($25,000 to $30,000). Ford didn't get a bailout. It's solvent, and it's making a less expensive electric car, but has to compete with a government subsidized competitor.

Rewarding failure and punishing achievement. How fair is that?


Also see:

Electric Ford Focus car due late next year
     

Over-embracing "Green" energy: the reality

Great Britain facing blackouts from 'Green' energy policies:

BLACKOUT BRITAIN FACES BIG TURN OFF

BRITAIN faces years of blackouts and soaring electricity bills because of the drive toward green power, a leading energy expert warned last night.

A growing obsession with global warming and “renewable” sources threatens the stability of our supply.

Derek Birkett, a former Grid Control Engineer who has a lifetime’s experience in electricity supply throughout Britain, warned that the cost of the crisis could match that of the recent banking collapse.

And he claimed that renewable energy expectations were now nothing more than “dangerous illusions” which would hit consumers hard in the pocket.

“We are going to pay a very heavy price for the fact there has been a catalogue of neglect by the former Government which has focused on renewable energy sources,” Mr Birkett said.

“We need a mix of sources and this takes time. Renewables have the problem of being intermittent, particularly wind, and we need more back-up capacity. By having all our sources in one basket we are risking disruption. [...]

California made the same mistake in the 1990. They put too large a portion of their energy budget into "green" initiatives that just could not produce the required power. The result was rolling blackouts. They then had to scramble to start building more conventional power plants, which contributed to the states ever growing deficit problem. I posted about it here:

Green Energy, Blackouts, California and France

The mistake wasn't in encouraging and promoting "green" renewable energy sources. The mistake was in trying to rely on them as primary energy sources too soon, before they were ready to handle that capacity.

At best, green energy sources are supplemental. You can't make them prime before their time. They are evolving technologies.

Even people who don't believe the global warming hysteria, like green energy, because it reduces our dependency on foreign oil. But we can't ignore reality, and must acknowledge it's current limitations, even as we try to integrate it where we can, and work steadily to improve it and encourage it. To allow global warming hysteria to force premature adoption of green energy on a massive scale, will have disastrous results. You only have to look at California to see why.


Also see:

Cap and Trade: following California's example?

Been there, done that, got the Tee-shirt... and moved to another state. But our whole nation now is moving to make the same mistake. If you read the whole article about Great Britain, the details, it's the same thing there. How many other countries are doing the same things? Is "everyone doing it" now?