Archive for the ‘Geothermal Power’ Category

Green Investment Stocks Website

Friday, November 30th, 2007

I’ve been interested in investing in “green” business and/or stocks but didn’t know who or where to look for these particular type of stocks and ran into this great website, InvestorIdeas.com, that lists almost 400 “green” stocks in 16 categories. There are a handful of mutuals featured too.

Every company listed is an active link and has a little description and history about the company. I especially liked the categories. Already people have preferences. I know I lean toward hydrogen fuel cell technology and yup it’s a category. There is the basic solar, wind, geothermal, and hydrogen technologies along with biogas, ethanol, and clean power plants to the companies that supply parts like turbines and flywheels.

So there are a lot of choices out there already. I guess I lean toward hydrogen fuel cells because Daimler-Chrysler was the company that supplied Iceland with their first commercial hydrogen buses back in 2003, and recently GM said that was an avenue they will pursue. Just yesterday I saw the commercial for Honda’s new fuel cell car that emits only “clean water vapor.” Hydrogen is on its way. If you ever get a chance to catch the Eco Tech series on the Science Channel watch for the engineer that invented hydrogen pellets that supply power on demand. He commented that we may be putting pellets in our tanks before long.

While I don’t know about that one, automakers are leaning toward hydrogen. Hopefully we will utilize hydrogen power and clean our water in the process. Now I would like a piece of that!

Check out this informative investment website: http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/Companies/RenewableEnergy/Stock_List.asp.
 

Google Investing in the “Green”

Thursday, November 29th, 2007

Google announced it would spend millions of dollars annually in search of alternative energy sources like geothermal, solar, and wind power. And no they aren’t doing it for the money, or the power. Google is worth $208 billion and has no debt. Boy I wish I would have caught that wave. Anyway the guys at Google have at least $13 billion in loose change to play with and why not? They earnestly want to slow climate change with alternative sources as cheap as coal within 10 years.

Google also plans to cut or offset its greenhouse gas emission by 2008. Joining Google is Yahoo and News Corp. If this chain reaction keeps occurring, it will really add up. There are many corporations and businesses with a conscience that are really trying to contribute like Google. I’ve run across more and more articles about businesses looking to both cut emissions and find ways to incorporate alternative energy into their daily usage. I already blogged about business pushing the environmental movement. Many are doing so because of the high cost of fuel. It worked for me. A few changes and I lowered my gas and electric bill combined to $114, $115, and finally to $103 this summer. I didn’t suffer for it either.

Meanwhile Silicon Valley is filled with start up companies working on green energy. After watching a week of Eco Tech with batteries made from viruses, and hydrogen on demand pellets, I’m keeping my eye on what comes out of Silicon Valley. Not long ago investing in anything technical was very profitable. Like I said, I wish I caught the Google wave early. Now is a very good time to keep an eye on the stock market for signs of “green.” I can’t find too terribly many things wrong with going green along with the opportunity to watch some really great inventors come forward. It’s exciting to work toward such a noble goal, to slow global climate change. Whenever there is purpose, there is passion and that usually results in amazing innovation. 

Paying for the War; Federal Budget Cuts to the Environment

Wednesday, June 13th, 2007

NASA had to shelve a $200 million dollar satellite mission headed by a MIT professor because of budget cuts by the Bush administration. They also had to cancel the Deep Space Climate Observatory, a project that measures global precipitation, and the launch of a new satellite to replace one of our aged, primary weather satellites. All would help scientists better understand the impact of global warming.

What does that mean for us? With the weather growing more erratic, we won’t know sooner, but possibly later, maybe too late, what lies in store for us as far as droughts, floods, and hurricanes. It also affects the accuracy of severe weather forecasts and scientist’s ability to improve climate models with greater precision so that we know what’s going to happen far enough ahead of time to save our lives.

 And where are the funds going instead? Well, president Bush has a goal to complete the International Space Station and get astronauts back on the moon by 2020. Is it just me, or is he out of sync with everything just a tad on purpose? After all, it is a fact that the present administration is anything but environmentally friendly since it has a vested interest in big oil. It’s just a little too coincidental that funding to NASA has been cut, and it’s goals redirected by the president, especially when NASA scientists were the ones to come forward in protest that their expertise and predictions about global warming were censored by this administration. Evidence about those alterations aired on BBC news.

 Many cuts are being made by this administration as we run into the red more and more because of a war no one seems to want any longer. While Bush signs a $100 billion Iraq war funding bill, most of us should be wondering and inquiring how we’re paying for it. So far I’ve found federal funding to communities to repair/replace aging water lines has been cut, NASA’s funding has been cut, $78 million has been cut for federal energy efficiency programs, $2 million has been cut from FEMA’s budget, and Bush/Cheney have attempted another backdoor entry into the Artic Refuge for oil drilling, while they continue to propose to auction land in our National Parks to the highest bidder. And finally, please contact our representatives about the Farm Bill. Cuts have been made to almost two-thirds of the $23 million designated for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs that was allotted in the 2002 Farm Bill.

I’m warning everyone about the Farm Bill putting a pinch on farmers right at a time when we need to support farms in America if we want to eat untainted food again. As the Union for Concerned Scientists stated recently about the Farm Bill “These people rely upon grant and loan programs to support energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy sources. At a time when America’s rural communities are facing economic challenges, funding renewable energy and energy efficiency projects would help establish an additional income source for landowners, create jobs, and lower energy costs for rural consumers. The Bush administration also attempted to slash this program in the 2005 and 2006 budget proposals.” Nice, real nice.

 Some might argue that Bush has raised federal funding for solar power to $148 million and doubled biomass research to $150 million. But it’s curious that geothermal and hydropower has been eliminated altogether. To me this just looks like he’s playing to monopolizing capitalists that can charge for corn (biomass) like they do for oil, using the same infrastructure nationwide. By limiting what types of alternative energy we promote, leads to less diversity in a country where one region, like Michigan, might benefit from hydrogen power more realistically than the desert of the southwest where solar power would prevail, and the northwest where geothermal activity might produce energy for that region. But heaven forbid there would be a reduction in national monopolies like big oil. We’re long overdue to think outside the box. This should be a time of welcome innovation for renewable energy sources and a surge in entrepreneurs for the “green.”

NASA had to shelve a $200 million dollar satellite mission headed by a MIT professor because of budget cuts by the Bush administration. They also had to cancel the Deep Space Climate Observatory, a project that measures global precipitation, and the launch of a new satellite to replace one of our aged, primary weather satellites. All would help scientists better understand the impact of global warming. What does that mean for us? With the weather growing more erratic, we won’t know sooner, but possibly later, maybe too late, what lies in store for us as far as droughts, floods, and hurricanes. It also affects the accuracy of severe weather forecasts and scientist’s ability to improve climate models with greater precision, so we know what’s going to happen far enough ahead of time to save our lives.

And where are the funds going instead? Well, president Bush has a goal to complete the International Space Station and get astronauts back on the moon by 2020. Is it just me, or is he out of sync with everything just a tad on purpose? After all, it is a fact that the present administration is anything but environmentally friendly since it has a vested interest in big oil. It’s just a little too coincidental that funding to NASA has been cut, and it’s goals redirected by the president, especially when NASA scientists were the ones to come forward in protest that their expertise and predictions about global warming were censored by this administration. Evidence about those alterations aired on BBC news.

 Many cuts are being made by this administration as we run into the red more and more because of a war no one seems to want any longer. While Bush signs a $100 billion Iraq war funding bill, most of us should be wondering and inquiring how we’re paying for it. So far I’ve found federal funding to communities to repair/replace aging water lines has been cut, NASA’s funding has been cut, $78 million has been cut for federal energy efficiency programs, $2 million has been cut from FEMA’s budget, and our illustrious leader has attempted another backdoor entry into the Artic Refuge for oil drilling, while he continues to propose auctioning land in our National Parks to the highest bidder. And finally, please contact our representatives about the Farm Bill. Cuts have been made to almost two-thirds of the $23 million designated for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs that was allotted in the 2002 Farm Bill.

 I’m warning everyone about the Farm Bill putting a pinch on farmers right at a time when we need to support farms in America if we want to eat untainted food again. As the Union for Concerned Scientists stated recently about the Farm Bill “These people rely upon grant and loan programs to support energy efficiency improvements and the purchase of renewable energy systems including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy sources. At a time when America’s rural communities are facing economic challenges, funding renewable energy and energy efficiency projects would help establish an additional income source for landowners, create jobs, and lower energy costs for rural consumers. The Bush administration also attempted to slash this program in the 2005 and 2006 budget proposals.” Nice, real nice.

Some might argue that Bush has raised federal funding for solar power to $148 million and doubled biomass research to $150 million. But curiously geothermal and hydropower has been eliminated altogether. To me this just looks like he’s playing to monopolizing capitalists that can charge for corn (biomass) like they do for oil, using the same infrastructure nationwide. By limiting what types of alternative energy we promote, leads to less diversity in a country where one region, like Michigan might benefit from hydrogen power more realistically than the desert of the southwest where solar power would prevail, and the northwest where geothermal activity might produce energy for that region. But heaven forbid there wouldn’t be any national monopolies like big oil anymore. 

  

Read more about cuts to the environment at: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/positions/president-bushs-fy-2007-budget.html.

  

  

 

    

Global Warming, the Supreme Court, and the EPA

Wednesday, November 29th, 2006

Today is the first time a global warming case has reached the Supreme Court. They will begin hearings based on testimony of 12 states that are asking the court to force the U.S. government to order its environmental agencies to control CO2 emissions from vehicles under the Clean Air Act.  Michigan is among 8 of the 12 states that support the EPA.


But do we really trust the EPA? It was originally established to be independent of government, focusing on public health and its relation to the environment. We all know any business or agency’s ethics and motives are only as good as the people governing them. Also, there are other governmental agencies that have an impact on the EPA. The White House Council for Environmental Quality, formerly headed by Phillip A. Cooney is one of them. Cooney was caught editing important data from scientific reports for quite awhile as well as pressuring the EPA to go along, so much so, that in 2002 the EPA removed an entire section on global warming from its annual report about air pollution. In 2003 it published an extensive report of the environment with no information whatsoever about global warming. Cooney came to his position at the council as a lawyer and former lobbyist  for the American Petroleum Institute.  He has no scientific background to make any alterations of scientific data. You might say throw the bum out, but he has already left the position and now works for Exxon Mobil.


James Hansen, a climatology expert from a NASA Space Study, was pressured by his superiors after giving a presentation about human related climate change. He was told it was still an uncertain topic by his administrator. He reported that in 30 years he never witnessed as much White House involvement and filtering of information from science to the public.


The State Department pressured an international panel of representatives known as the Artic Council to alter their report on global warming. The final draft withheld recommendations for policy to reduce green house gas emissions in order to stop its horrible impact on the Artic. The State Department was also successful in ousting Dr. Robert Watson who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. During his time the IPCC produced a report that predicted an increase of 2.5 to 10.5 F in avg. global warming by 2100 with new evidence it was due to human activities. Exxon Mobil opposed the proposed regulation of CO2 and wanted Watson out. The State Department complied. Dr. Watson lost the support of the U.S. and his position as chair.


The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service developed a brochure on ways to curb agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. They managed to send the first printing but the White House’s Council of Environmental Quality objected to it and a reprint was canceled. 


As I stated in a previous blog, many Americans are wondering how our environment got so bad, so fast. Well this White House accomplished what they set out to do. Appointments to key environmental positions throughout the administration were filled by people that were once employed by the tobacco industry, and are now busom buddies with the petroleum industry. By altering scientific facts, they’ve attempted and succeeded in concealing from and confusing the public about the ever-increasing effects of global warming due to CO2 emissions. The biggest culprits of CO2 emissions are jet airliners, automobiles, refineries and coal burning facilities.  I watched a CBC segment by The Fifth Estate called “The Denial Machine.”  Phil Klapp cornered Jeffrey Holmstead, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation about altering scientific documents. Klapp had in his hand documents with visible alterations. As he read the changes, it was clearly understood they were meant to dilute the message of the reports. We weren’t just duped about the war folks. We’ve been lied to about the state of our world. And now the race is on to clean it up. It can be done and hopefully the U.S. will emerge as a model in that endeavor. It will take each and every one of us to do our part.  

We’re in this together

Friday, November 24th, 2006

     There are all types of casualties we endure on a daily basis especially during times of war. Losing someone or something precious can happen moment to moment. And although our lives are upset to the point we don’t think we’ll recover, we do. I just wonder how many people realize the biggest casualty of all is happening in small increments every day that none of us will recover from if we don’t turn it around.

Our environment is taking hit after hit, and many of us still do not know that when it’s stated we have 10 years to do something, it does not mean we have ten years before we start doing something. It means if we do not start today toward reversing global warming by controlling our pollution it will be irreversible within 10 years. It’s a good idea to control pollution to begin with. By all the water bottles I see these days, I realize that everyone does get the idea that maybe our water isn’t all that clean, and probably our air.  What I also see by those same water bottles is that we really aren’t getting it at all. Where do you think those plastic bottles go? If your community recycles that’s great. If you recycle on your own, then bless you, but unfortunately only 70% of all our garbage is recycled. Those bottles end up in landfills of which there are approximately 6000 in the U.S.  Plastic takes around 500 years to decompose. Do we love our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren? Then what are we doing?

The intent of this news blog is to be in your face about our world because we’re all in this together, and if you or my other neighbors don’t jump in and help, the experience of living won’t be what we once knew. Right now it is what it is “An Inconvenient Truth” as Al Gore aptly named it. Many of our little conveniences in life may have to be abandoned to save our earth, save ourselves. It’s a rude awakening, but the sooner we snap out of it, the sooner we turn it around. No more burying our heads in the sand or waiting for “they or them” to do something. They or them is us, all of us.

Anyone who has any questions about anything environmental feel free to blog. If you know something you don’t think the rest of us are aware of blog it. If you don’t quite believe in global warming yet let us know why. Anyone who has already adapted his or her lifestyle differently to save on anything let us know how, so we might adapt. One idea becomes a ripple that becomes a wave and the whole community benefits.

None of us are perfect angels about the environment. I still drive a gas hog, although I’m looking at all hybrids and beseeching Ford to revive the cobra body style with an electric/ethanol motor. I’m a baby boomer that wants a hybrid sports car. Any baby boomers out there want to weigh in on that? Doesn’t an environmentally friendly sports car sound good? My tip to any other gas hog drivers out there, consolidate your running around. I’m down to 2 days per week. Group up and ride to work together. Quit running your kids around and enjoy family nights. Quitting our rat race can help the environment.