We have seen a circus of accusations at oil CEO's, and various statements that oil drilling would NOT make a difference, unbelievable.
The Clean Energy Investment Framework (CEIF)
The Clean Energy Investment Framework (CEIF) identifies the scale of investments needed to:
Grants for Clean Energy Business
Grants from the state or federal bodies are given to further a specific interest like a particular area economic development, or to invest in a particular area where research is needed or a particular industry which will help grow the state economy.
Most of the programs are focused towards helping businesses to invest in research and in turn expand the use of eco-friendly technologies which will help in saving energy costs, use alternatives, save the environment and also boost the economy.
Here is a look at the programs currently on offer in the State of Pennsylvania
The total of $12.8 million is available for grants through the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA). Of this $11 million is for businesses and projects which are willing to relocate to the state and or have innovative or breakthrough projects for advanced energy. For those skeptics who say that grants are not there, here is some data to look at and ponder over. Beginning 2005, PEDA has given $31 million for projects that invest in clean technology projects.The name of the other two grants is Alternative Fuels Incentive Grants and the other one is Energy Harvest.
So before you think of applying for a grant make sure that you have gone through various states energy development programs and that may give that extra edge in your business.
Amit writes about grants for small business in energy production area specifically and has a resource to put together information about grants for small business in consulting area.
Is Biomass Really a Clean Energy Resource?
As we strive to find alternative energy resources, many possible solutions are on the table. Biomass energy is one such solution or is it?
Biomass energy like biodiesel or ethanol is unique in that it has existed in primitive forms since the early days of mankind. Burning wood in a cave is a form of biomass energy, which is simply the conversion of an organic material in a manner that produces heat. For example, a fire converts the organic wood into heat. Therein, however, lays the problem.
Global warming is a much debated issue with everyone having a strong opinion and no one seemingly willing to listen to the other side. Whatever your view on this subject, what is clear is we are producing an absolute ton of carbon-based gases in our modern civilization. This is a key issue since the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is a key factor in climate regulation on our planet.
To understand the problems of biomass as an energy form, one has to understand the biomass cycle that occurs on the planet. Simplified, the biomass cycle regulates the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. The biomass, primarily in the form of plants, uses carbon to grow and the biosphere effectively acts as a sponge for carbon. This sponge effect, however, has limits. As with a sponge in your kitchen, the biomass can only suck up so much carbon at one time. When there is too much carbon in the atmosphere or we shrink our “sponge” with deforestation and such, we run the risk of overwhelming the atmosphere with carbon gases. If our atmosphere has excessive carbon, heat is trapped and all hell begins to break loose. From a practical standpoint, this means our relatively mild climate on Earth will start becoming more chaotic. After the most recent hurricane season, that definitely is not a good thing.
Taking the biomass cycle into consideration, the negatives of all biomass energy production are that they create more carbon gases. A caveman sitting next to a fire in a cave is using biomass energy to produce heat, but the black smoke is a very nasty carbon pollutant. In modern terms, biomass energy doesn’t really resolve the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere. Yet, there is an argument on the other side of the biomass coin.
Proponents of biomass argue it is a better energy source than fossil fuels. The basis of this argument is that plants [biomass] have taken in much smaller amounts of carbon gases over a shorter period of time than fossil fuels. Thus, burning them is a carbon neutral situation. The problem, of course, is that even if this concept is correct, we are not cutting down our carbon emissions. At this point in time, we need to be reducing carbon gasses, not maintaining our current output.
It is indisputable biomass has its problems. It is a better alternative than fossil fuels, but how much so?
Rick Chapo is with SolarCompanies.com, a directory of solar energy companies. Visit us to read more articles on solar power and renewable energy.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo
Painting Solar Cells Onto Steel
Who knew painting could be so energy efficient? Swansea University researchers are looking into ways of painting solar cells onto pliable steel surfaces in the hope of generating electricity from the process. The allegation is that this method could produce the same amount of electricity as 50 wind farms.
Gimme a Green Cell Phone!
No, I'm not talking about LG's green-hued Mint Chocolate phone (although, if I were in the market for a new Chocolate, the green Mint would be my preference). What I'm actually referring to is a new type of technology that the wireless industry is testing out that will use alternate energy to power cell phones. Cell companies have "heard the call" of millions ofgreen energy advocates and, in response, have begun working on ways to change the methods they have had in place for years.
5 principle sources Green energy resources?
In the article ‘ The pillar of green energy ‘ The writer state 4 main sources of “green energy”:
What Is The Outlook For The Availability Of Fossil Fuels?
I think this article is comparable to the people who slow down on the highway to look at an automobile accident. You are not involved in the accident, yet you surely are curious about what is happening. At the present time we can sense the presence of a disaster, but we do not have enough information to feel that we can get involved. My push to adopt renewable energies is based on our continued polluting of the environment with the burning of fossil fuels. We know that we must slow down this pollution so that our quality of life will not be severely degraded. There is another piece of information needed to prod us into action, and that is how long do we have before we run out of fossil fuels? As a current member of the earth, I am concerned that we leave future generation's sufficient energy to bridge the gap from fossil to renewable fuels. This, to me, is looking at the car wreck. How long do we have until we are the ones involved in the wreck?
The development of modern civilization has been dependent on both the availability and the advancement of energy. We have witnessed a progression from animal and steam power to the internal combustion engine and electricity generation and to the harnessing of alternative sources of energy. Because of our reliance on energy sources, it is also important to understand the impact of energy use on the environment. All aspects of energy, the way it is produced, distributed, and consumed, can affect local, regional, and global environments through land use and degradation, air pollution and global climate change via greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the foreseeable future, it is very likely that fossil fuels will remain our largest source of energy. However, fossil fuels are finite resources and there is concern not only about both domestic supply and U.S. reliance on foreign supplies but, also, with the increasing cost of these fuels. The research on the longevity of fossil fuels is an exciting adventure in itself. I will touch on some of the theories before I conclude this series of articles. Given the slack of a decade or two, the best summation of the longevity of fossil fuels is presented in "Wikipedia, Fossil fuel: Years of production left in the ground with the most optimistic reserve estimates (Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil)".
Oil: = 45 years
2008 The Funding of Alternative and Green Energy Innovations
The cost of using fossil fuels to make energy for our nation is getting to be an economic burden on our middle class and country. Using Oil for fuel in our cars is causing significant problems with monetary outflows. Burning coal is polluting the air and that is a challenge to our health and environment. Luckily there is some good news on the way.
In fact, I see that we have some Venture Capitalists, and Investment Banking Firms, putting their money where their mouth is, along with some pretty decent initiatives for Government Funding, some of which are from the Bush Administration.
It seems that once Carbon Nano-Tube manufacturing becomes viable, environmentally safe and creates economies of scale to lower costs, we will see Hydrogren Cell technologies for transportation kick off. Why, because the compressed hydrogren leaks from tanks too easily, but carbon nano-tubes can prevent this challenge.
With the high cost of fuel it makes other alternative energies much more viable, it makes hybrid car costs look pretty good on a Return on Investment graph as opposed to the huge operational costs associated with $3.00 per gallon or higher gasoline. All this is ushering in a new age of technology and alternative energy and that can only be good for America.
"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is a guest writer for Our Spokane Magazine in Spokane, Washington
What Is The Best Solution To Rising Oil Prices?
Global warming and environmental destruction is one of the most talked about issues in our present day society. There are so many ways to protect our environment and save some money at the same time. Do you think increasing your vehicles MPG (Miles per Gallon) by fifty percent or more would have a positive impact in our environment? How about having a positive impact on your wallet?
If we do not end our dependence on fossil fuels soon, not only will our wallets shrink, our environment, along with its wild inhabitants will also suffer. Most of the narrow minded people in our society believe the answer to these rising prices is to drill for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuges. It is obvious that these people only care about themselves, and not our miracle planet. Oil is obsolete. We should have ended our dependence on it many years ago, but the oil companies billions were at stake. Recently, I was searching for some alternatives to oil. Finding some these money saving secrets was very difficult. Fortunately, I did track down some incredible fuel saving secrets that the oil companies hate.
Yours in Natural Health,
What everybody ought to know about investing in green energy?
With the oil prices roller coaster, the increase in demand for energy in developing countries and the emergence of new technology making the investment in renewable energy resources an attractive idea.
The politicians intervention is not welcome for all green energy resources
I have just saw the article in solar energy now, that claims that politicians should not intervene in the solar energy markets,
Bill O'Reilly on Oil and Iran - O'Reilly Creates Mass Confusion Over Record Oil Prices
Listening to Bill O'Reilly and the comic book version of reality he espouses is enough to give one a serious case of heartburn. In a recent Talking Points memo entitled "We are all in Danger", O'Reilly pins the blame for $138 a barrel oil on the "gangsters" in the OPEC oil cartel, claiming they are pumping up the price at the pump in an attempt to destroy America. Conveniently, O'Reilly neglects to mention that the price of oil is not actually set by OPEC, but by the light sweet crude oil contract traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX. He also fails to note analyst estimates that as much of 60% of the current oil price is pure speculative froth due to commodity traders gone wild.
Instead of using his platform to inform Americans about the true causes of record oil and gas prices, O'Reilly has unfortunately chosen to spin the issue into a baseless and inflammatory attack on OPEC countries, such as Iran and Venezuela, with which the US is currently embroiled in a tense geopolitical stand-off.
Don't "Dig it"? Then why not "Flush it?" Because the worst is more interesting than the best!
John McCain's Stance On Energy & Environment
Senator John McCain is making environmental news headlines again for taking a stance on climate change and distancing himself from the Bush Administration. In recent days, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate has campaigned in the Pacific Northwest touting his pro-environment commitment and agenda. McCain's commitment to fight global warming differs from current Administration policy and from many other standard-bearing Republican Party agendas.
In McCain's analysis, establishing a national standard for tradable carbon emission permits will allow the so called "good carbon emitters" to offset the "bad" ones. Furthermore, a nationwide cap and trade system would provide the necessary incentives to promote growth of solar, wind, and other renewable energy industries. McCain does not offer specific policy or market tools for solar or wind technologies because he is confident that a cap and trade system would sufficiently bolster those and other similar renewable energy markets. Nor has McCain outlined a more detailed plan on how his cap and trade system would work or what industries and activities would be targeted.
For McCain, alternative energy means energy independence. As we've mentioned in previous posts, of the three current presidential front runners, John McCain most vocally favors reinvesting in nuclear power. He views nuclear energy as the most viable technology to meet the nation's electricity demands. In his speech he made in Oregon (and posted on his website), McCain views the nexus among energy, the environment, and national security as one of the most important issues facing our nation.
McCain's voting record, however, leaves critics dubious about his intentions and commitment toward the environment. The League of Conservation Voters who created a National Environmental Scorecard gives McCain a lifetime rating of 24 percent for his previous voting record regarding the environment. For this year's legislative session, McCain gets a Zero; thus far he's been absent for any of the environmentally related bills that have come up for a vote.
Critics point to inconsistencies in McCain's voting record. As an article in Monday's Washington Post points out, McCain has embraced some environmental provisions, yet shunted others not so seemingly different from the ones he supports.
Supporters contend that McCain, as a political maverick, has consistently distinguished himself from conventional Republicans. They cite that McCain was one of the first in Congress to acknowledge climate change and introduce legislation addressing the issue.
He's certainly savvy when it comes to renewable energy photo-ops. In February McCain stood in front of a solar photovoltaic manufacturer when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his endorsement for the Senator. On Monday, McCain restated his environmental policy at a wind power company in Oregon. Time may reveal whether these press events truly signify McCain's intentions toward renewable energy.
"The Clean Energy Scam" Article Critiqued
Michael Grunwald writes articles in Times Magazine and today I read one of his articles. The title of the article was striking, it read: "The Clean Energy Scam" in bold at the top of the first page. The subtitle stated: "Hyped as an eco-friendly fuel, ethanol, increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food prices. So why are we subsidizing it?" The entire second page has on it a picture of what used to be a large portion of the Amazon Rain Forest, now it looks like farmland as far as the eye can see with a small patch of forest tucked into the lower right hand corner of the page, about the size of a small subdivision. Underneath the picture a statistic reads: "750,000 Acres of Brazilian rain forest was lost in the last six months of 2007 (equal to the area of Rhode Island)"
Our government, true to its form, in trying to find a solution to our dependency on oil, has created another problem for the world. In the article Grunwald writes, "Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled an eye-popping plan that would require all gas stations in the U.S. to offer ethanol by 2017... Barack Obama immediately criticized her - not for posing such an expansive plan but for failing to support ethanol before she started trolling for votes in Iowa's caucuses." Iowa is famous for corn which is used to make ethanol. Who is to blame? Our whole system of government is to blame, a system in which lobbyists control politics. The farm lobby is extremely powerful and it is influencing decisions. Our government has found a cheap and lucrative alternative to oil in which they are marketing it like crazy. What do you think is going to happen when the our government brings ethanol to every gas station in America? The rest of the world will follow, in order to compete, and soon all forests will be gone. We will destroy nature's way of trapping carbon and could drastically increase global warming.
http://www.TIME.com, "The Clean Energy Scam"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
