Showing posts with label Solar power rocks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solar power rocks. Show all posts

April 07, 2008

no comment required. from SOLAR POWER ROCKS

Solar Powered Poop Doll… … …..

Posted on March 9, 2008 by David Llorens.
Categories: Solar Trends.

I’m in a coffee shop with a cold, hopped up on Day Quill. Publishing this is probably, well, ill-advised.

Anyway, I wanted to write something interesting, but I’m all… Tussin’ed up and can’t think straight. I decided to let good ol’ Google do the thinking for me, so I got on Google Images and typedPublish Post in “Solar Funny.” I was disappointed. I made it to page six and was giving up, but I couldn’t help but click on this beauty:

solar funny in google images

Solar Baby Toy

The product’s name is “Solar Baby Toy” and it’s price terms are “FOB” which, after some wikiresearch, I found is an “incoterm,” and it’s payment terms are “T/T” (I found out this means wire transfer). OK, chinawholesalegifts.com, I’m all ears… I want to know more about Solar Baby Toy!

“Product characteristics:

solar energy doll the whole body is an activity design sunlight IC to receive, direct convert the sunlight/light as solar energy O not need any outside power supply, environmental protection hygiene the cerebellum Bag again and again nods a smile toward you Very lovely and funny, bring you a relaxed mood really let the person don’t want to put it away
Used as home and Office decoration, presents, and children toy.”

My Cerebellum bag hurts.


February 21, 2008

Signs of things to come for Canada: British Petroleum

BP goes back to petroleum

The shift to renewables has been ditched for a carbon intensive future


This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday February 21 2008 on p29 of the Financial section. It was last updated at 09:53 on February 21 2008.

The Armani-style beige suits worn by security staff at BP headquarters in London and introduced under the reign of former boss, Lord (John) Browne, are to be quietly dropped in favour of more traditional grey ones. It is a small change but one dripping with symbolism that the flamboyant days of the "sun king" are definitely over and the company is going back to basics and a bit of no-nonsense austerity.

New chief executive, Tony Hayward, has embarked on a cost-cutting programme that will see the removal of 14,500 jobs and slice £500m off the company's overheads as part of a wider plan to streamline the business.

The biggest change at the oil major is associated with none of these initiatives: it is the decision to accept that high crude prices of between $60 and $90 per barrel are here to stay, which will affect the whole strategy of BP. This "seismic shift," as one veteran analyst described it, promises to hasten in an era of higher dividends, more capital expenditure and investments in high-cost areas such as the oil sands of Canada that were previously considered too costly - and environmentally unfriendly.

'Climate crime'

BP appears to be dropping a central plank of Browne's strategy, the green promise to go "beyond petroleum", in favour of going back to petroleum - a move which many believe has riled the former boss. In what some saw as a thinly veiled criticism, Browne argued at a recent conference that some energy groups were "in denial" over the need to clean up their carbon output.

The move into tar sands through a deal with Husky Energy has been condemned by Greenpeace as "a climate crime" because three times as much carbon is produced extracting the crude from the ground compared with ordinary oil operations. Steam or hot water is used to separate the oil from the sand and then more power must be used to turn it into useable fuel. Hayward has also upset green groups by downgrading the company's alternative energy portfolio and dropping plans for an innovative carbon capture and storage (CCS) experiment at Peterhead, Scotland.

The former head of exploration and production makes clear that now every-
thing, including renewable fuels, must pay their way, at a time when BP is under pressure to restore its financial standing. The firm was once the biggest company on the UK stockmarket, but a reversal of fortunes has left it vulnerable to acquisition. Despite four years of increasing crude prices, BP has contrived to destroy its advantages through of a series of accidents, notably the Texas City refinery fire and Alaskan pipeline spills, while being hit by a number of trading scandals. Browne was forced to leave the group in April after lying in the high court over his personal life.

Hayward may have been tanned and relaxed at the recent annual financial results announcement after his holiday in the British Virgin Islands, but he was desperate to declare he felt anything but complacent. "The year 2007 was one of change for BP. In terms of financial performance it was one which most of us will be glad to leave behind. We are judged by investors in relation to our peers. In that regard our financial performance was not good enough," he said candidly.

The company had just reported a 22% fall in annual profits to $17.3bn at a time of record oil prices, so there was little place to hide, except in the knowledge that the problems had started and gathered pace during the reign of his predecessor. By far the biggest hole in the accounts came from the low throughput performance of the Texas City and Whiting refineries, assets acquired by Browne during a spending spree, after being hit by a mixture of explosion, hurricanes and repair problems which cut output in half at peak times.

Carbon billionaires

Hayward appears to be doing all he can to distance himself from the man who had appointed him head of exploration and once saw him as a successor.

While he is instilling a new commercial discipline into BP's alternative energy portfolio, which takes in small wind farms, CCS experiments in California and hydrogen fuel research, Hayward is as keen as ever to ensure the company's greener image remains.

But the environmental groups do not believe him. James Marriott, of campaigning group Platform, said: "Moving into the tar sands of Canada and dropping a carbon capture and storage plan for Peterhead are part of a recarbonisation of BP. It might help the share price in the short term but longer term Hayward is exposing the company to the dangers of a rising carbon price [for CO2 emissions permits] and falling oil price."

There have also been rumblings that some BP staffers are unhappy. A senior manager who left in December has questioned the wider strategy of the oil industry in searching for ever more reserves at a time when the world is trying to reduce its carbon output. Jan-Peter Onstwedder, formerly BP's most senior risk manager, calculates potential carbon emissions from proven oil, gas and coal reserves at 700bn tonnes, compared with about 500bn tonnes which can be emitted this century and keep temperature increases within less dangerous bounds. "It prompts the questions: where does more exploration fit, do we already have all the reserves we possibly need? I don't know whether they [the oil industry] thought their strategy through."

Browne has kept a low profile since he left the company, but at a recent speech to the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, he let fly, saying there was a need to "displace high-carbon options" in the choices that were made in future.

Browne said the way energy companies approached carbon in future would be a core issue for investors and it was only a matter of time before the world would see several carbon billionaires while renewable power "majors" would make it into the Fortune 500.

"Carbon is coming and it will impose costs on conventional energy sources. Energy businesses should not live in a state of denial, but work constructively with governments to ensure a smooth transition," he said at the summit.

"The challenge is to reduce emissions against business-as-usual projections, which does not necessarily mean revolutionising existing energy infrastructure. The key is to displace high-carbon options with low-carbon options in the choices we make from now onwards about new energy capacity," he added.

It is unclear what Browne will make of the end of the beige suits, but he certainly does not sound ready to endorse the black oil sands.



See also:

BP positions itself for share of Iraqi oil

· Talks with Baghdad officials held in Jordan
· Campaigners say oil law will cost country billions

BP at Sourcewatch

Solar Power Rocks


February 19, 2008

MSM news gets hip to biofuels

Hey, we knew and we told them; now that they realize that this effects THEM, the editorialist at major papers are getting hip and posting OpEds such as the following - GO SOLAR! Insulate your homes, demand public policy be changed before more damage is done.

I resent opeds like this that suggest that none of us knew and that no one was warned. They was WARNED and the effects on the poor by the use of biofuels deserves coverage in their newspapers - but hey! we don't talk about poverty and hunger in the MSM in north america, do we??

Veeger

This is from Newsday:

Editorial: Don't be biofooled about biofuels




The nation's enthusiastic embrace of biofuels as a greener alternative to imported petroleum has run afoul of the law of unintended consequences.

Two authoritative studies show that ethanol and other biofuels actually hurt the environment. When the full emission costs of producing these "greener" fuels are considered, they create more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels.

Global warming, the studies demonstrate, is increased by the destruction of natural ecosystems - rain forests in the tropics and grasslands in North America - taken over for biofuel production.

The results of these studies, published in this month's issue of the prestigious journal Science, should not be lost on Congress and President George W. Bush. Both have pushed hard for the production of biofuels in crafting the latest energy bill, offering generous subsidies to farmers in the nation's corn belt to distill ethanol - the least efficient and most energy- and petroleum-intensive way of producing this type of biofuel.

Already, gasoline sold at Long Island pumps and elsewhere in the Northeast is at least 10 percent ethanol in the winter. Achieving Bush's goal of replacing 15 percent of gas with ethanol and other biofuels would eat up the whole U.S. corn crop.

Environmentalists, who had been early promoters of biofuels, have been taken aback by this scientific controversy. They had argued that biofuels would emit less carbon dioxide than petroleum products, but now many recognize what the new studies show: that the effects on land use had not been taken into account in the broader calculations on climate change. As a result, the European Union is now considering a ban on some biofuels.

Ethanol production is already jacking up food prices, another unintended consequence. A sound energy policy must take all this into account in the rush for greener alternatives.

The results of these studies, published in this month's issue of the prestigious journal Science, should not be lost on Congress and President George W. Bush. Both have pushed hard for the production of biofuels in crafting the latest energy bill, offering generous subsidies to farmers in the nation's corn belt to distill ethanol - the least efficient and most energy- and petroleum-intensive way of producing this type of biofuel.

Already, gasoline sold at Long Island pumps and elsewhere in the Northeast is at least 10 percent ethanol in the winter. Achieving Bush's goal of replacing 15 percent of gas with ethanol and other biofuels would eat up the whole U.S. corn crop.

Environmentalists, who had been early promoters of biofuels, have been taken aback by this scientific controversy. They had argued that biofuels would emit less carbon dioxide than petroleum products, but now many recognize what the new studies show: that the effects on land use had not been taken into account in the broader calculations on climate change. As a result, the European Union is now considering a ban on some biofuels.

Ethanol production is already jacking up food prices, another unintended consequence. A sound energy policy must take all this into account in the rush for greener alternatives.

From the comments left:

Well here is my assumption on ethanol or at least corn ethanol:

>not enough corn to produce ethanol
>takes three times the water to make ethanol
>it is corrosive and you need to use trucks not pipes
>it is corrosive and will wear your engine out sooner
>less fuel efficiency
>takes just as much fuel to make ethanol, so you gain nothing
>this is a money grab for the farm lobby
>this will not make a dent into the oil we get from the Middle East
>prices will go up in the stores on food and it already has
>will not be able to feed the world
>too much planting will ruin the soil

don't know if "Environmentalists", in general, have been supporters of biofuels, I'm one who has not been. Many environmentalists have been skeptical, as many are skeptical of the folks, especially politicians, that jump on easy fix bandwagons for environmental problems. we've been working on environmental problems for many years and know the solutions won't be so easy. they can be fixed, but it won't be easy.

Biofuels cannot reduce greenhouse gases--simple consideration of the fact that all the carbon they remove from the atmosphere is subsequently released back into the atmosphere when they are burned shows that. and they can't even be carbon neutral, because farmers must burn carbon to produce biofuels, it takes fuel to get them to market, and we can't turn them into transportation and heating with perfect efficiency.

Biofuels might be good for other reasons--they might be good for fuel independence, they might be good for farmers. but so far even the latter is far from clear, as the ag bill clearly shows. Support for biofuels is just a price support (=welfare) for the big businesses that own corn farms in the midwest.




November 21, 2007

UP to speed on US government iniatives on solar power

Bush and SBA Sit on their Hands Regarding the Energy Policy Act of 2005

So this is one of those super boring posts about politics… Sorry. Hopefully it will get you all riled up about Solar and how awesome it is and how the government does nothing to foster it. :-(

So senator Kerry and Snowe have been consistently pressing the Small Business Administration on why they’ve done close to nothing concerning the Energy Policy Act that was signed into law by President Bush way back in August 2005. The bill was designed to have the SBA develop a government-wide program to assist small businesses in becoming more energy efficient and to educate them on available tax credits and federal program opportunities. Blah, they did nothing. Just pass the bill and don’t act on it. In this letter Kerry and Snowe bitch to the SBA about not having done anything, and rightfully so.

But hope is on the way! There is a new bill the two have introduced, the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007! I addition to doing a bunch of sweet, sweet new things like providing an energy audit program similar to that for individual homeowners (see the HERS section of this page), it would provide loans for small businesses to make renewable energy improvements.

So let’s say you’re a hotel and you spend $700 per month heating the water to wash your linens and run your showers. Let’s also assume if you got solar water heating that you would save $500 per month. Well if that installation costs $20K than you’re probably going to pass even though you may save a lot of money in the long run. Now let’s assume you can get a government loan from this program to make the installation and pay about $200 a month on it. Now it’s a no-brainer, saving $300 every month.

Sweet!

ShareThis