Biomass Can Come from a Great Variety of Interesting Sources

Biomass energy and biomass fuel are becoming more and more viable options for a sustainable future. But Biomass is a lot more fascinating than most people realize, with fuel sources ranging from chicken excrement to human fat and even stranger substances you might never have guessed. The many, many different possibilities for biomass materials makes it one of the most fascinating forms of alternative energy - especially when you consider these unusual methods of biomass production:
(more…)

We’ve all heard by now that corn-based ethanol has turned out to be a bad idea.

• Corn is energy intensive to grow, gobbling up fossil-fuels at every stage of production, from transporting seeds to fertilizing the fields (with petrochemical fertilizers) to final harvest.
• Corn is also a spectacularly water-intensive crop.
• The ethanol production stage consumes more fossil fuels and water.
• Once it finally reaches your gas tank, ethanol burns around 30% less efficiently than gasoline (meaning your per-mile cost is actually 30% more than you think it is).
• Estimates of how much actual energy we get out of the process range from barely breaking even to around 20 percent more than the input energy.
• And of course, every step of the process spews CO2 into the atmosphere.

It’s been almost a year since The New York Times editorialized on the subject:

The economics of corn ethanol have never made much sense. Rather than importing cheap Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane, the United States slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol from Brazil. Then the government provides a tax break of 51 cents a gallon to American ethanol producers — on top of the generous subsidies that corn growers already receive under the farm program.

And unlike our inefficient corn-based ethanol, that Brazilian product actually yields 370% of the energy put into it.

So, why are we doing this? What possible calculus could convince us to even consider corn ethanol?

Corn is big business - and big agribusiness hires the best lobbyists.

Here, the return on investment is spectacular: plant a few tens of millions of dollars in seed money in the form of campaign contributions to senators and members of Congress, and reap billions of dollars in federal farm subsidies.

And for agribusiness, corn is king. (more…)

You may well be wondering - why the heck is Nancy Pelosi pushing through a bill that allows for offshore drilling? Isn’t that against everything we’re supposed to stand for? Is this another example of business-as-usual betraying core Democratic principles?

Alas, sometimes green areas fall in grey areas. Here’s the scoop:

Where’s the fire? Why rush it through now?

The offshore drilling ban, in place now for decades, has a “sunset provision”. It has to be renewed every few years.

Unless a bill is passed, the ban expires on September 30. At which point… Bush could immediately hand out leases anywhere he wants to.

So, we need a bill, and a bill that can pass, by September 30.

What’s in the bill?

As it now stands, the bill (technically, it’s House Resolution 1433,Louise Slaughter’s Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act), keeps some limits: no drilling within 100 miles of shore (50 miles in some areas). And it works in a bunch of good things:

• Restores tax credits for renewable energy, which had expired (and Republicans were blocking).
• Closes tax loopholes for the oil companies (when you hear Republicans talking about “Tax Increases” tonight on the TV, that’s what they’re talking about - the bill closes loopholes, but doesn’t impose any new taxes)
• Curbs to energy speculation (we still don’t know how much of this summers sky-high prices were the result of speculators)
• Release 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (which should also help to drive prices back down ahead of the election…)
• Includes a “Use It or Lose It” provision that says oil companies can’t just sit on leases, but have to actually drill for oil (companies currently have millions of acres of leases that they’re not doing anything with… leading some to wonder why we have to open up new areas for drilling if there are plenty of virgin fields just sitting there, undrilled…)
• Includes incentives for public transit, clean coal, and other good green goals.

Is this a good compromise?

Maybe. It might get a few things done that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. And we have to get something passed, or we’re stuck with drilling, regardless.

Will it work?

Good question.

The Senate has a completely different bill under consideration, a bi-partisan compromise measure proposed by a “Gang of 20″ which just happens to include the Republicans up for re-election this year who are considered most endangered - New Hampshire’s John Sunnunu, North Carolina’s Elizabeth Dole, Maine’s Susan Collins, Minnesota’s Norm Coleman and Oregon’s Gord Smith.

The two houses will have to hash our their differences, bring together a compromise bill, and then… Bush has threatened to veto it.

So wait - this isn’t actually going to become law?

Not likely. Again, the drilling ban expires in two weeks… which is what the Republicans want.

So what’s actually going on here?

Cover.

The Repubs can go back to their moderate-to-liberal constitutents in Oregon, Maine and New Hampshire and say, “Look, I care about the environment!”

Pelosi and Reid can say “Look, we tried the bipartisan compromise that everyone in the damn media has been claiming we should be doing - and Bush vetoed it. So much for bipartisanship!”

And drilling?

Hopefully President Obama can do damage control after he takes office in January. Along with damage control on Iraq, Wall Street, infrastructure, health care, employment… well, you get the picture.

(Photo: “Offshore Oil Platform Under Construction” — Image by © Royalty-Free/Corbis)

The US Airways Center will be the latest venue to benefit from alternative power, as the Phoenix Suns have announced plans to utilize solar panels, one of only a few professional sports organizations to currently do so.

Enough energy will be provided from the panels to reduce energy usage by roughly 26 home games, says Suns General Manager Steve Kerr. In other words, it will be as if 26 Suns basketball games never occurred at the US Airways Center, which means a big improvement on power consumption. Also, 440,000 pounds of carbon dioxide are expected to be eliminated each year. A total of 1,100 panels at 194 kilowatts on the parking garage’s fifth level will make this feat possible, providing a green mentality that celebrated Canadian and Suns point guard Steve Nash can get behind. Nash has long been a big proponent for eco-friendly sports venues  and green initiatives as a whole, so the star should be pleased with his team’s efforts, which are likely to be expanded to include the use of green cleaning products by the maintenance crew, and more. Nash is even apparently installing solar panels at his home - perhaps we should call him Apollo Nash?

The new installation will run the Suns about $1.5 million, but the Arizona Public Service Co. will rebate the team $60,000 to $85,000 each year as part of their commendable renewable energy incentive program. However, the Suns won’t be ponying up cash themselves any time soon, and fans won’t be seeing an increase in ticket prices, concession costs or anything similar to make up the difference. Instead, the organization is teaming up with Tioga Energy, who will conduct panel maintenance for the next 20 years in return for an annual fee paid by the Suns that is contingent on the amount of solar energy produced.

All in all, it seems like a win-win situation for both parties as well as the environment. And hey, doesn’t it all just make sense for the Phoenix Suns? Surely there can be some additional beneficial publicity arising from this, too, given the team name.

For the record, the Suns aren’t the first to get in on the eco-friendly action. The San Francisco Giants were the first baseball team to use solar power, installing 590 panels at AT&T park back in March 2007. The Boston Red Sox and Colorado Rockies have followed suit since, at Fenway Park and Coors Field, respectively. In August of this year, it was announced that the Staples Center, which houses the Los Angeles Lakers, would receive their own collection of 1,700 solar panels.

Source: azcentral.com

San Francisco residents vying for the option of public power have had hopes dashed eleven times since the 1920s, but the fight against power entity Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E) is entering its twelth round, and this time supporters of the proposition – Proposition H – believe that November 4th will mark a victory for them and the environment.

Since the 1960s the Bay Guardian has championed the prospect of publicly owned power, but now the Sierra Club, eight of 11 area supervisors, and the San Francisco Democratic Party are collectively behind Proposition H. The noteworthy hold out? Mayor Gavin Newsom, who contends that “the people” aren’t terribly interested in such an initiative, and are more concerned about beggars and smacking into potholes with their vehicles. Newsom maintains Proposition H is nothing but a sheep-in-wolf’s clothing, acting as a concealed attempt to takeover the for-profit PG&E.

This doesn’t rub Prop. H supporters well, who insist that the duplicity of Newsome is unacceptable.

“It is the epitome of hypocrisy considering how flagrantly his political trajectory is attached to green policymaking,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, a longtime supporter of public power. “He really is becoming a walking contradiction when he’s preaching about the need to go green while defending PG&E.”

Public power supporters are aimed at achieving a city that relies on 50% renewable sources by 2017, and 100% by 2040. While PG&E derived 11.4% of its juice from renewable sources in 2007, the company is highly likely to fall short of the 20% mandate by 2010 put forth by California. Depite criticisms, spokespeople at PG&E insist the corporation is among the greenest utilities in America.

There is little objectivity to be had by either side. Some city officials say the takeover could cost as much as $4 billion, while others vehemently disagree, arguing that the takeover would pay for itself in time. Advocates for Prop. H swear electric rates will go down; PG&E officials claim rates will rocket by $400 a year. See a pattern here?

Oh, and Mayor Newsom?  He has some intriguing ties to PG&E. The power company has co-hosted parties with him and donated to various causes tied to Newsome. Further, the mayor’s chief political strategist has been hired by PG&E as a consultant in their quest to squash Prop. H. We’ll let readers take of this what they will.

For further details on the structure of Proposition H, click here.

Source: SFGate