Friday, August 31, 2012 | By Great Energy Challenge | No Comments
In the same week that the Obama administration announced its new fuel economy standard, U.S. automaker General Motors announced it would halt production of the Chevrolet Volt electric car for four weeks, citing the car’s failure to meet targeted sales projections, according to Bloomberg news.
(Related Photos: Rare Look Inside Automakers’ Drive for 55 MPG)
GM sold 10,666 Volts in the U.S. in July. Global sales were targeted at 60,000 units, with 45,000 on the U.S. market. Sales for 2011 were also under target, and even though an investigation into vehicle safety concluded that the Volt did not pose a fire risk, the congressional hearings on the issue led to a slow-down in sales.
According to Bloomberg, citing Automotive News, GM will halt production at the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant between 17 September and 15 October, though GM did not independently confirm those dates.
“In the past couple of months, the production of the Volt was running ahead of sales, but I thought that might be for this particular process because they’re bringing in the new vehicle, so they were intentionally trying to get ahead,” Alan Baum, principal of Baum & Associates, told Bloomberg.
This is not the first time GM has stopped Volt production because of weak sales: The automaker also did so earlier this year, just before the model was named European Car of the Year.
— Charles Kennedy
This post is based on one from OilPrice.com and was republished with permission.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 | By Great Energy Challenge | No Comments
A new fuel economy rule that will nearly double the efficiency of the nation’s cars and trucks to a fleet-wide average of 54.5 miles per gallon over the next 13 years was finalized by the Obama administration this week. The requirements of the rule will be phased in gradually between now and then, and automakers could face fines for non-compliance.
(Related Photos: Rare Look Inside Carmakers’ Drive for 55 MPG)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimate the rule will increase the average price of a vehicle by $1,800 in 2025. Consumers could save an estimated $5,700 to $7,400 in gasoline over the life of the vehicle. Additionally, the rule is expected to save 4 billion barrels of oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2 billion metric tons.
The rule, some argued, doesn’t come without consequences. Higher-efficiency vehicles that consume less fuel could reduce revenues from the gasoline tax 21 percent by 2040. As a result, spending on road repairs could decline.
Forbes says regardless of the high 54.5 mpg requirement, your average will likely be closer to 40 mpg.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 | By National Geographic News | No Comments
U.S. gasoline prices are getting worse before they get better, spurred by domestic refinery woes and Hurricane Isaac.
Thursday, August 30, 2012 | By Heather Rivera | No Comments
Got the Healthy Living Sam’s Club magazine with Bret Michaels on the cover which surprised me. It was a good article, so check it out if you get these in the mail, or borrow one from your friend. I also ran into this yummy sounding ‘Healthy Apple Butter’ recipe. With fall coming soon, thought it would be a nice treat. Looks yummy and easy. Enjoy!
4 pounds organic apples, peeled, cored and diced.
3/4 cup organic apple juice
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon nutmeg (or more to taste)
Place apples in a blender or food processor with apple juice and blend until applesauce consistency. Transfer to a slow cooker. Cook on low 4-5 hours, stirring occasionally. Let apple mixture cool and stir in spices. Add more cinnamon or nutmeg to taste. Store in the refrigerator after cooling to room temperature or can to enjoy at a later date!
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 | By Great Energy Challenge | No Comments
Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, efficiency. Which are the Republican hopefuls’ priorities?
This week, it’s convention time for the Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees. Last week, the Romney-Ryan team rolled out its energy policy [pdf] for the nation. Entitled “The Romney Plan For A Stronger Middle Class: ENERGY INDEPENDENCE,” the new plan, running 21 pages, replaces Romney’s energy policy paper from September 2011.
The new blueprint is a mix of policy points and criticisms of the Obama administration along with “Did You Know?” sections comprised of quotations from sources ranging from the Manhattan Institute to the New York Times. It turns out that the white paper devotes more space to the quotations than to Team Romney’s own statements.
In the Clouds with Romney-Ryan
The plan’s goal of achieving energy independence, writ large in the report’s title, is a bold vision. Bolder still when it is understood that the goal is for North America by 2020. But of course the devil is in the details.
So what are the details? One objective way to get a sense of the plan is through a word count. After all, the prominence of a topic or term, such as oil, wind or energy efficiency, is a reasonable proxy of its import.
The word cloud shown below provides some interesting insights: “U.S.” and “energy” are front and center and “Obama” is pretty prominent — although it’s a safe bet that he’s not being mentioned or discussed in a positive light. In terms of energy sources, “oil” is by far the dominant player and “gas” is no slouch.
After that, slim pickings. “Coal,” “wind” and “solar” do show up, but finding them is a bit like the old needle-in-a-haystack challenge. And I never did find “nuclear.” Ditto “conservation,” “efficiency,” and “biofuels.”
|A pictorial word count for the Romney-Ryan energy plan.
Big on Crude, Short on Green and a Little Nasty
Want to be a little more quantitative? Then take a look at the table below. Of the words we counted, “oil” is the winner, appearing 154 times. Averaged over the length of the document, that’s more than seven times per page.
You green types may be relieved to know that “environment” gets a fair showing with 24 appearances. For example, here’s one item that suggests that the Romney team would seek a balance between environmental protection and economic development:
“Implement measured reforms of environmental statutes and regulations to strengthen environmental protection without destroying jobs, paralyzing industry, or barring the use of resources like coal.”
But contrast that with this direct frontal attack on enviros:
“But statutes and regulations that were designed to protect public health and the environment have instead been seized on by environmentalists as tools to stop development altogether.”
|Word or term (and its derivatives)
||Number of times used
Alternative Energy Not Much of an Alternative
Making brief appearances, cropping up once or twice in the plan, are “clean energy,” “alternative
energy,” “conservation,” efficiency,” “green energy,” and “biofuels.”
Climate. What Climate?
And get this. The number of times the word climate appears in the Romney-Ryan plan: 0.
So the Romney team’s energy plan is huge on oil, big on gas, and everything else is pretty much an also ran. Drilling down (sorry, couldn’t resist), it’s pretty clear that the plan’s path to North America’s energy independence is to … drill — to exploit domestic sources of oil and gas as quickly and as comprehensively as we can.
A number of analysts (see here and here) have pointed out that even if such an approach for North American crude allowed the United States and its would-be Mexican and Canadian partners to meet their domestic needs for oil, it would still not free us from international price instability or dependence on politically unstable nations. Why? Because oil is fundamentally a global commodity and even countries that are net exporters of oil (think Canada) still suffer price swings due to unrest and other volatility elsewhere. And so in that sense, the whole notion of energy independence when it comes to petroleum is illusory, and the real issue should be energy security.
(See here and here.)
And when it comes to energy security, many — including George W. Bush — have argued that that is achieved by reducing our consumption of oil, a move that would begin to decouple our economy from unstable, oil-rich parts of the world. And how would we do that? By growing our use of renewable energy and becoming more efficient. (See here and here.) Clearly these goals are not central to Team Romney’s plans, at least at this point in the campaign.
And then there’s the whole problem of energy and climate. How do Romney and Ryan plan to solve that conundrum? Apparently, for now at least, by ignoring it.
An interesting bit of trivia related to the energy plan can be found in the PDF of the plan under the “properties” menu. There, Anna Gatlin, the Romney campaign’s domestic policy advisor who has a master’s degree in education policy and management from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, is listed as the author.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 | By Heather Rivera | No Comments
Shannon B. shared this with me, so I thought I would share too. Pretty cool!
a bamboo keyboard & mouse by iZenbamboo. Click here to check out more cool for school Mama Earth friendly items.. like the laptop case made from a wetsuit. Pretty Cool!
Jim S. shared this, which is really COOl too!
(6 feet 6 inches in diameter by 10 feet long)
Institute of Design and Construction Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Roll-It Lock, stock, and home. In most houses, you walk along a hallway to reach various rooms. In the ingenious Roll-It, designed by architecture students, you tread upon the central, window-filled “corridor” until the rooms come to you. The bed, chair, and desk are built in on one end; the sink, cooktop, and toilet on the other. Once you’ve positioned your desired furniture arrangement, the unit can be locked in place.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 | By Great Energy Challenge | No Comments
Most news coverage of energy and the environment is in love with the new: cool new technologies, new research, and all the impressive creative energy that’s being poured into these fields. Yet one of the most significant factors shaping the energy field is the power of old decisions.
Take, for example, the power plants that supply our electricity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration released a report on the age of the nation’s generating stations this month, and one of the most striking things is how old they are. Half of our generating capacity (51 percent) is at least 30 years old.
But the other interesting point is the age of different kinds of plants. For example:
- Of the 25 oldest power plants in the country, 24 of them are hydroelectric dams, built more than 60 years ago.
- Three-quarters of our coal plants were built before 1980.
- Most of our nuclear plants were built in a two-decade period between 1970 and 1990.
- Almost all of the new capacity – the plants brought on line in the last 10 years – comes either from natural gas plants or wind farms.
If you look at the history, these trends make sense. In the first half of the 20th Century, Americans believed in big public works, like Hoover Dam. But views have changed, and there aren’t many more major rivers that could be dammed even if we wanted to. The trend toward nuclear power picked up speed in the 1970s until the Three Mile Island accident occurred, and even after the accident a number of nuclear plants already in the pipeline were completed. Coal has been the world’s go-to power source since the Industrial Revolution.
And the current trend toward natural gas and wind? That’s been driven by the improving economics of natural gas, as well as concern over climate change and the other environmental downsides of coal.
To a remarkable extent, we’re living with the energy choices of our grandparents. Power plants can easily last for generations. And while our grandparents undoubtedly made the choices that made sense for them at the time, they couldn’t possibly anticipate all the consequences of their decisions.
The real lesson here is that, just as our grandparents made choices for us, we’re making choices for our grandchildren. The natural gas plants and wind farms we’re building now will be serving our needs for decades to come. Domestically, that will leave us with a cleaner and more diversified energy system than we have now, although at the current pace it’s going to take a long, long time.
But the United States is only one player in the energy world, and arguably not the most important one anymore. China, India and the developing world are the ones adding power capacity at a feverish pace to keep with growth, and they’re the ones who are going to really shape the global energy future. It’s also no coincidence that the International Energy Agency warned last year that the world is coming uncomfortably close to locking itself into an “insecure, inefficient, and high-carbon energy system.”
There’s an old saying that “nothing lasts so long as the provisional.” In the energy world, there are remarkably few purely short-term decisions – and yet we make so many of our choices based on short-term thinking. Maybe it’s time to remind ourselves that it’s our children who will live in the energy environment we create for them. Are we bequeathing them an energy system that considers their interests in the long term, or will we just continue doing what’s easier for now?
Monday, August 27, 2012 | By Heather Rivera | No Comments
I found this at Old Navy over the weekend. It was $7.50, but I also had a 25% off coupon, so that Rocked. Plus it’s cute and very Mama Earth friendly. Reusable food bag that actually keeps things warm/cold, long enough until it’s time to dig in. Who said reusuable couldn’t be cute? I certainly didn’t.
Monday, August 27, 2012 | By Great Energy Challenge | No Comments
The breezy ridges that are so attractive to wind-power developers are also, quite often, prime raptor nesting territory. That’s the case on Kevin Rim, sandstone cliffs in north central Montana where NaturEner is building a 189-megawatt wind farm that will generate power for San Diego Gas and Electric.
If this sounds like a situation that could lead to a classic pitched developer-environmentalist battle, well, it did have that appearance – but in a surprising turn, the developer of the Rim Rock Wind Farm has agreed to relocate more than two dozen turbines, pushing them away from raptor nesting sites.
“At the urging of Montana Audubon, NaturEner voluntarily agreed to relocate each of 25 wind turbines to provide a buffer of approximately ½ mile from historic and active raptor nests,” the company and organization said in a joint statement [PDF]. “This commitment was made after the project design was finalized, financing completed, and actual construction had begun.”
A memorandum of understanding [PDF] reached by the parties added that the relocation came “at great expense to Rim Rock,” and included acknowledgement from Montana Audubon that NaturEner’s actions in the matter were “unprecedented and extraordinary.”
According to Audubon, 10 species of raptors are documented to breed at Kevin Rim, including four species that are of global (ferruginous hawk), continental (Swainson’s hawk, prairie falcon), or state (golden eagle) “conservation concern.”
Ferruginous hawk, Montana (Photograph by Bob Danley, Flickr)
But with the project on private land and no Montana wind development regulations lax, Audubon’s leverage was limited. Projects on federal land at the very least give interest groups a chance to comment on the potential impact of a development.
On the other hand, some raptors – including golden eagles, which are found in the Kevin Rim area – are protected by federal law, regardless of whether they’re on public or private land.
The Obama administration recently finalized new voluntary siting guidelines that were endorsed by the wind industry and many major environmental groups, including Audubon. While the voluntary guidelines don’t carry the big stick of mandatory regulation, they do come with a carrot: They state that developers found to be in violation of laws and regulations – whose turbines, for instance, kill a protected species – could potentially escape trouble if they can show “documented efforts to communicate with the (Fish and Wildlife) Service and adhere to the Guidelines.”
Earlier this year, when NaturEner got financing to build the project and the raptor issue began to bubble up, the company told the Great Falls Tribune [PDF] it was consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service, but maintained that quarter-mile setbacks were adequate around Kevin Rim. The area is a designated Important Bird Area by Audubon, and is also an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and a Key Raptor Area according to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Further discussions, however, apparently swayed NaturEner.
“Although the land-based wind energy guidelines developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) did not specify a setback distance, NaturEner was aware of the concerns and consulted with both the USFWS and Montana Audubon in an effort to find common ground regarding the planned turbine placement,” the joint statement said. “After numerous meetings and the desire of both NaturEner and Montana Audubon to find an acceptable solution to minimize potential impact to these sensitive bird species, the final design plan was changed.”
As of the end of July, 33 of the 126 turbines planned for the site were installed. With 305 workers on the site, NaturEner is motoring ahead to get the project completed, and an opening ceremony is set for Sept. 12.
Rim Rock is merely one project out of more than 1 gigawatt (GW) of wind power capacity that NaturEner has planned for the windy corridor surrounding the Montana-Alberta Tie Line (MATL) transmission line. The 300-MW, 214-mile long MATL will stretch from a substation nine miles northeast of Lethbridge, Alberta, to Great Falls, Mont., according to a company announcement from January.
Rim Rock is NaturEner’s third wind farm in Montana. The company also owns and operates the 210-MW Glacier 1 and Glacier 2 projects, near Ethridge. The company’s Canadian affiliate is developing more than 500 MW of wind power capacity in Alberta. Both companies are subsidiaries of Spain-based Grupo NaturEner.
— Pete Danko
This post originally appeared at EarthTechling and was republished with permission.
Friday, August 24, 2012 | By Heather Rivera | No Comments
Congress is being asked to serve tap water instead of bottled water during the presidential inauguration. Tap water is about a penny a gallon while botted water cost about a dollar a gallon (100 times more expensive). “Bottled water opponents say that in addition to the waste created by disposable bottles, trucking in bottled water also creates pollution.” Now bottled water fans are saying if they use bottled water, they can make sure the bottles are reusable.
Which do you prefer tap or bottled water? I think bottled water tastes better than what comes from my tap. Here are some lists I ran across that could help make the tap more desirable and flavorful. =
*Eight natural ways to make water taste better Click here for more taste better ways! *If you are looking filtration system click here for pointers. Happy Drinking!