Our World and Everything in It

Professor Rose Ann Cattolico of the University of Washington began her study of algae back when the other fuel crisis hit in 1973. Only unlike those that eventually gave up the search for alternative fuels Cattolico continued on for more than 30 years.

The results of her tenacity may help the entire world shed their need for crude in a very short period. For the U.S. it may happen within a decade. Her studies are so promising that according to an article on UW News website, “Allied Minds, an investment company that works with universities to commercialize early-stage technology, invested in the University of Washington biology professor’s work, forming a startup company called AXI.”

What Prof. Cattolico basically did was create an entire database of different types of algae. Different algaes produce lipids, or oil, as a result of photosynthesis. All algaes are different so that one type of algae may produce oil that is perfect for two stroke engines, another for home fuel, and another for jet or car fuel. There are so many forms of algae that genetic engineering is unnecessary. 

Cattolico stated, “Algae grow rapidly and do not require the use of productive farmland. Algae also can use various nutritional sources, including wastewater.” What a boon to be able to use wastewater to feed the algae. If it works in anyway like biodigestion, the effluent and/or any solids leftover are pure fertilizer.

According to Erick Rabins of AXI, “Entire infrastructures, from specialized growing facilities to processing plants, will have to be created. [] The most optimistic assessment that I’ve heard is that it could be six to eight years before there’s something that’s useable, but the tools and techniques to make it possible are being created right now.” he said.

The professor emphasizes what many environmentalists have been saying all along: “What we need is a Manhattan Project for fuel. If we can get a Manhattan Project for fuel, it won’t take 25 years.”

http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=43454.

Marvin Odum, the new president of Shell Oil, the second largest oil company, said that Shell would be investing big in alternative energy today on ABC news. How big is big? More than their reported net profits of $27 billion. Incredible. I did a blog that did the math for the percentages that have been offered up by the top 5 oil companies in the recent past. It didn’t amount to a hill-of-beans compared to net profits.

But Shell is stepping up to the plate with the largest investment in alternative energy so far by the oil industry. Odum said it was historic. I would say so. Shell will invest $35 to $36 billion dollars yet in 2008.

Yesssss!  With this mindset, and example, we may just clean up yet.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5632698&page=1 

I can’t believe it, but for whatever reason, DTE is going green. They are poised to invest billions in alternative energy for Michigan and from what I gathered of the Detroit Free Press article in yesterday’s Sunday paper, it is to help jumpstart Michigan’s economy. Actually, it said it was: “boosting the state’s efforts to become a leader in this rapidly growing market.” It can’t be talking about our senate’s recent efforts. It looks more like this is another example of the market driving environmentalism. The company couldn’t have made a more timely decision.

The article went on to say that DTE would invest $3 billion dollars over the next 6-7 years. This hinges on the state passing the mandate to insure 10% of Michigan’s electricity comes from renewable sources. The article reiterated that there are major differences between the senate and house energy bills, and that unless these differences are resolved, Michigan will continue to lose out on environmental jobs. 

DTE recognizes the potential for job growth, reduction in global warming, and energy independence by going green. The company is taking up the slack on wind power in Michigan that the latest round of energy bills through the senate seemed to dismiss. The “bulk of DTE’s multibillion-dollar investments will be in wind power.” The wind farms will be in the thumb region, the western side of the state, as well as, the possibility of a wind farm in Huron County.

DTE said it has begun to make multimillion dollar investments into its venture capital fund for alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and biofuels, but also new technologies and solutions, power storage, and companies that produce equipment like meters that monitor electricity use. This venture fund, formed in 1995, has not been active for the past few years, and is one of the few corporate venture funds available in the state “focused on alternative energy.” 

Recently, I happened to find a 1997 congressional presentation by many companies, including DTE, and from many states relative to alternative energy innovation. DTE presented some pretty advanced technology way back then. I’ve followed one of their investments, a company that produces hydrogen fuel cell extractors. It’s really advanced technology.  

What I find interesting is that these absolutely wonderful alternative ideas for energy presented to our federal congress back in the mid to late 90’s that were either ready to be developed further, marketed, and/or sold, just got shelved for years during the Bush administration. It looks like a big “Green Thumb” kept wraps on new technology entering the general public milieu even though the Texas ranch uses geothermal energy, and I wouldn’t doubt Cheney’s digs are eco friendly too. DTE just admitted their alternative energy venture fund has been on hold. It was obviously waiting on politics and/or the market.

I wonder if this new push to go green by DTE has anything to do with a federal judge vacating the “Clean Air Mercury Rule” as just another way to move pollution around, while demanding that the EPA set new standards for mercury emissions in less than 2 years? That ruling has a direct impact on coal fired plants. That’s for sure. Or is DTE keen enough to see the writing on the wall that a new environmental economy will lure more money and investment into Michigan, a good thing for all business, and in which case DTE is doing what our congress should be doing. Or is another monopoly forming because the possibility exists that any home can get solar panels, or a wind turbine, or a bio-digester for methane gas production, or all three, and provide energy for itself in the future. That paints a pretty scary picture for big utility companies and great incentive to go green first. 

The news suggested yesterday that skyrocketing gas prices may not be a bad thing. I’ve always believed higher pump prices could be the proverbial kick in the shorts for people to pay attention to what’s going on. It’s working. Demands for greater gas mileage and energy saving alternatives has been just the catalyst needed for a whole barage of ideas to burst forth to a tune of $448 billion dollars so far this year, DOUBLE that of last year already.

Venture capitalists are having a field day. There are even some pension plans racing to invest in a green market.  Some of the inventions are remarkable. There are already plastic bottles created from corn by-products so they are totally biodegradeable. And every thing and any thing is being sought after to accomplish either energy production or energy storage, right down to bacteria.

So it is true, out of something bad can come something very good.  

Get a load of our democratic process with this latest veto out of Washington. The Bush EPA nixed California’s proposed emission standards for the state that targeted the trucking, shipping, cement, semiconductor and consumer product industries. Instead Bush signed into law a new energy bill that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent by 2009 and by 40 percent by 2020. The EPA said this covers the issue of emissions, end of story. Was that apples to apples?

Sixteen other states have already approved emissions laws and were waiting for this waiver by the EPA too. The EPA is supposed to have sole authority to make pollution rules, but our Federal Clean Air Act allows states to create their own rules with an EPA-approved waiver. The waiver was nixed today. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of 12 states that sued the same EPA for dragging their feet about CO2 emissions. The Supreme Court had to tell the EPA that greenhouse gases can be considered “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and they were in violation for not regulating them. And today the EPA blocked California and the other states from doing what should have been the EPA’s job and substituted with Bush’s flimsy energy bill. 

So the states go through a lot of effort for nothing. The emission laws were part of California’s “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The NRDC and many public interest groups co-sponsored it. California committed to reducing overall global warming pollution by 30% by 2020. They figured on new technologies as well as pollution cutting strategies to meet these goals. They sought the help of E2, “a national network of business people who work with the NRDC to champion the economic benefits of good environmental policy” and “who built a solid case for the ways in which curbing global warming could actually benefit California’s economy” (Nature’s Voice Newsletter by the NRDC Jan/Feb 2008). Just what I thought. Green is good for the economy.

I was intrigued by E2 and read on that they argue, “that clean technologies would create jobs and attract new companies to the state…supported by the fact that clean tech now ranks third in venture capital investment in North America.” Told ya so Michigan. Clean technology isn’t likely to coexist alongside coalburners and refineries. They showed that California would save “barrels” of money by reducing dependence on fossil fuel. It also stated that it took 124 meetings at the state capital by E2 volunteer members to “present their business-based argument.” They worked hard to come up with legislation that protects the environment and creates economic opportunity. They believe global warming controls will spur economic prosperity. This was a great program, until the automobile lobby got involved. Yeah, another lobby.

According to our own Detroit News:

Using a one-page script and a list of auto facilities obtained from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents automakers, staffers at the Department of Transportation called nearly every congressional member from Michigan and Ohio, urging them to oppose California’s request, according to records released this week by the House Oversight Committee. They also targeted other auto-heavy districts and governors in at least seven other states.
While federal law bars government officials from lobbying lawmakers on issues before Congress, there are no such restrictions on regulatory questions, such as the California waiver.

California filed a lawsuite challenging the EPA’s denial of the waiver. And there is a House Committee investigating the agency’s decision to deny it also. This is getting good.

.
Read more about the veto at: http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/epa-nixes-states-plan-to-limit-greenhouse-gases/#comment-285.

Read more about E2: http://www.e2.org/jsp/main.jsp.

About the Supreme Courts decision: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june07/emissions_5-29.html.

The Detroit News article about the auto lobby: http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070705/AUTO01/707050350/1148.

Ever since I watched the series “Eco Tech” on the Science Channel I’ve been optimistic about going green in America relative to a new economy, one that most of America desperately needs. Along with thousands of other Americans who are embracing a new future, and huge corporations like GE that is having trouble keeping up with wind turbine demands, I see very little drawbacks to forging ahead in the world of green. I’ve listed all the positives before and it appears that others are trying to put all those positives into action.

An Oakland, California based human rights activist named Van Jones is seeing the future in green also. He believes it will be power for the people by the people, that there is a need in the green industry for blue collar workers redubbed “green collar.” Jones says, ‘Polar bears, Priuses, and Ph.D.s aren’t going to do it alone’ according to an article about him in Time magazines Dec. 3rd, 07 issue called “Bring Eco-Power to the People.” Green jobs need to find a way to expand to the rest of the economy.

Jones is a Yale educated lawyer who founded the Ella Baker Ctr. for Human Rights in Oakland. He sees the need to: ‘Give the work that most needs to be done to the people who most need the work.’ This man is figuring that many unemployable workers could easily be retrained for green jobs like installing solar panels, organic gardening, and green construction.

The article says that a study by the “Cleantech Network, which tracks green investment, found that for every $100 million in green venture capital, 250,000 new jobs could be created.”  Jones along with Majora Carter recently started a campaign called GREEN FOR ALL to secure one billion in government funding to train a quarter-million workers in green fields. Carter says in the article: “We’re looking for an environmental Marshall Plan for the 21st century.” Jones sees this as a way to reunite a very separated left and right. He wholeheartedly believes in bringing together the business, tech, and racial-justice communities. From that there will be no more blue and red division in America. We’ll all be working toward the green.

This is not the only article I’ve read about future green collar jobs. My husband’s skilled trades paper had an article about union trades people volunteering their own time to help learn as they constructed an environmental house with Lawrence Tech students for the Solar Decathlon 2007. The interest in green is there, but as the article stated, global warming must relinquish its narrow focus as just an existential threat and embrace the new look of an “enormous economic opportunity.”

Read my blog on Eco Tech if you haven’t done so. If you ever get a chance to catch the weeklong series again please do. There are green companies and inventions in place and ready to go. An example: Centia which plans on mass producing jet fuel from the thick grease, some 4 billion lbs. of it, discarded annually by restaurants. It is indistinguishable from the real stuff at only $2.23 per gallon, and creates far less pollution while eradicating the greasy, gobby stuff. And like Jones’s idea, another company RWA employs the homeless and unemployable to collect the grease for Centia. I’m waiting for Centia or RWA stock. Another company that is set to purify water from sewage came up with the same figure of 250,000 for new jobs in a green economy just to start.

Going green does not mean doom and gloom for the world’s economy, just ask Germany, the world’s leader in going green and quickly.  It’s a time of great opportunity because it is a time of great need. Every country must utilize their most ingenious, most intelligent citizenry for new invention, but there will still be the need for everyday people to finance, layout, truck, construct, assemble, and create those new ways to power the world.  It is truly “power for the people by the people.”

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/?p=120

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686811,00.html

To hear interviews with green movement leaders goto: time.com/going green also.

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 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. 

It’s really funny to me that scientists from around the world declared global warming to be real and that we are the cause of a lot of it, and people–senators, judges in England, all types, argued and some are still arguing the point, but once again capitalism and the old pocketbook is the catalyst for change in America.

Rising oil prices have industry scrambling to invest in energy saving technology. Wind is taking off so fast, GE, one of the biggest producers of wind turbines, are strapped to keep up with demands. Four billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year. We have 100 ethanol plants already, although I don’t like this trend. Wind good, corn NOT.

The MSNBC article I read stated that it’s no wonder. Industry consumes 1/3 of all energy. Without cutbacks, their profits get squeezed. Since there are some government incentives to invest in alternative energy sources, high oil prices are just the catalyst needed to drive industry into conservation ur umm going green, never mind that without massive change we suffer bad, bad consequences. Fires, floods, tornadoes, no matter, the real motive is profit.

I say, whatever works! I’ve read other articles that predicted the retail and industrial market is what will drive environmentalism forward. Those articles speculated that governmental policy in this administration would not likely be the catalyst, duh. The article also said what I blogged about before, there is more and more capital available for going green.

It’s a very encouraging article about how companies are cutting costs, making changes that are driving the market forward. This is good folks. The more interested industry is, the better the innovation gets, and the lower the cost to us.

Read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12040418/.

Big funding may be around the corner for CO2 capture technology. We’ve got plenty of coal. We’re not going to quit using it. We have coalbuners everywhere. But coal is dirty and part of the pollution problem.  So it looks like we may be going the route of capturing the CO2 emissions from coal burning plants and burying it.

There is new problem. How much CO2 can the earth hold? It seems like a volatile business to me, like a little too much compressed gas and kaboom! But there appears to be big motivation to get moving on this. John Kerry recently introduced a bill that would increase “funding to establish three to five coal-fired power plants with advanced carbon capture technology and three to five large-scale sequestration projects” according to environmental news service.  I guess these would serve as models.
The news also reported: “The legislation authorizes $2.4 billion in annual grants through 2015 for the power plants, as well as $1.6 billion annually through 2015 for the sequestration projects. It also calls on the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, to complete an assessment of the nation’s geological storage capacity.” There was unanimous agreement between parties on the subcommittee that this is a good bill.
Maybe if we realize our feasible limits for CO2 storage we won’t run into some of the problems we have now. Was there ever a way to measure just how much CO2 our atmosphere would hold without going bust when we created coalburners and failed to offer fuel economy cars? If so, someone goofed.
I realize that we might have to do things like store CO2 in the earth, but it should not be looked at as a solution, only a temporary fix. We need to seriously start experimenting with combinations of renewable energy to relieve the overload on fossil fuels. We may have plenty of coal but strip top mining for example is wreaking too much havoc on habitat and our mountains. Miners are wreckless and the entire surrounding area is destroyed
There should be a happy medium for every living thing if we don’t end up in an all out race by waiting too long to decide whether or not a problem exists. We need to get moving in order to have a smooth transition into a future with renewable, sustainable energy.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-08-10.asp.