No on 23 – Stop Dirty Energy

TexasOilPollution

Two Texas oil companies are spending millions on Prop. 23. Prop. 23 will:

  • Result in more air pollution and increase public health risks
  • Jeopardize 500,000 jobs and $10 billion in private investment in California clean energy businesses
  • Increase consumer energy costs by up to $650 per year by keeping us addicted to costly oil

Get all the facts at www.StopDirtyEnergy.com

You can also:

  • Educate yourself on how California’s climate & energy laws have created companies & jobs:  www.CABrightSpot.com.
  • Tell your friends by email, on Facebook, at work, & everywhere else.
  • Participate in the debate. Write letters to the editor and post comments on blogs & websites.
  • Contribute (click here). The other side’s leader, right-wing California Assemblyman Dan Logue, has publicly said he expects the oil companies to spend $50 million.
18. October 2010 13:57 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

Back Yard Sea Level – Your back yard

Click to view full size

Information is Beautiful puts some things in perspective. Sea rise due to Global Warming, for instance.

Two meters higher wipes out Los Angeles, Amsterdam, Hamburg, and St. Petersburg. Large parts of San Francisco and Manhatton are also submerged.

That is a lot of nice Real Estate that will be going to waste.

7. October 2010 12:05 by Kal | Comments (1) | Permalink

Beyond Petroleum – Obama starting to get it?

“I said to the Republicans, join with me,” Obama said. “There’s been some good work done by John Kerry and Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Let’s go. Let’s not wait. Let’s show the American people that in the midst of this crisis, all of us are opening our eyes to what’s necessary to fulfill the promise to our children and our grandchildren.”

31. May 2010 11:58 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

Beyond Petroleum – Wind and Solar are better deals

Offshore oil vs. offshore wind ... who wins?

How many offshore wind turbines could have been bought for the cost of 1 Deepwater Horizon? The answer is enlightening.

More...

28. May 2010 09:29 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

Bill Gates: the Most Important Climate Speech of the Year

From Alex Steffen at WorldChanging:

When We Talk Zero, We Sound Crazy. When Bill Gates Does It, Bankers Pick Up the Phone.

On Friday, the world's most successful businessperson and most powerful philanthropist did something outstandingly bold, that went almost unremarked: Bill Gates announced that his top priority is getting the world to zero climate emissions.

And Friday, Gates predicted extraordinary climate action: zero. Not small steps, not incremental progress, not doing less bad: zero. In fact, he stood in front of a slide with nothing but the planet Earth and the number zero. That moment was the most important thing that has happened at TED.

More...

17. February 2010 16:09 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

A Plan to Power the US NOW 100% Without Imported Oil

This radical idea comes from John Michael Greer on his blog in a piece titled: Facing the Deindustrial Age

Thus it's one thing to try to find some way to power today's industrial system with renewable sources while leaving intact the structures of everyday life that give our civilization its extravagant appetite for energy. It's quite another thing, and much closer to the realm of the possible, to use renewable energy to meet the far more modest energy requirements of an agrarian society. Especially in North America, restating the question in this way opens up immense possibilities. Very few people who live on this continent, for instance, have noticed that it's only our energy-wasting lifestyles that keep us dependent on imported oil -- with all the unwelcome economic and political consequences that brings. Even 35 years after its own Hubbert peak, the United States is still one of the largest producers of oil on Earth. If the average American used only as much energy per year as the average European, America would be exporting oil, not importing it. Only our insistence on clinging to the dysfunctional lifestyles of an age that is passing away keeps such an obviously constructive goal off the table in discussions of national energy policy.

I will repeat the money line for emphasis: If the average American used only as much energy per year as the average European, America would be exporting oil, not importing it.

Of course, cutting consumption is not the only thing we should be doing. We should be adding renewable energy sources as fast as they can be manufactured until only the most basic transportation needs are powered by oil. If we limit the use of fossil fuels to powering airplanes, we probably have enough to last quite a long time.

19. November 2009 20:29 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables

From the November 2009 Scientific American Magazine. Download the Full Paper from paper by Jacobson and Delucchi.

Key Concepts
Supplies of wind and solar energy on accessible land dwarf the energy consumed by people around the globe.

The authors’ plan calls for 3.8 million large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and numerous geothermal, tidal and rooftop photovoltaic installations worldwide.

The cost of generating and transmitting power would be less than the projected cost per kilowatt-hour for fossil-fuel and nuclear power.

Shortages of a few specialty materials, along with lack of political will, loom as the greatest obstacles.

In December leaders from around the world will meet in Copenhagen to try to agree on cutting back greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come. The most effective step to implement that goal would be a massive shift away from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy sources. If leaders can have confidence that such a transformation is possible, they might commit to an historic agreement. We think they can.

5. November 2009 10:24 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

Reality Strikes Again - The time for climate action is now!

  Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research discussing an article in Nature, International weekly journal of science.

On the way to phasing out emissions: More than 50% reductions needed by 2050 to respect 2°C climate target

 


Illustrative Figure for free use:

Meinshausen_etal_SimpleFigure_big.jpg   Two possible futures: One in which no climate policies are implemented (red), and one with strong action to mitigate emissions (blue). Shown are fossil CO2 emissions (top panel) and corresponding global warming (bottom panel). The shown mitigation pathway limits fossil and land-use related CO2 emissions to 1000 billion tonnes CO2 over the first half of the 21st century with near-zero net emissions thereafter. Greenhouse gas emissions of this pathway in year 2050 are ~70% below 1990 levels. Without climate policies, global warming will cross 2°C by the middle of the century. Strong mitigation actions according to the blue route would limit the risk of exceeding 2°C to 25%.

...

April 30, 2009 - Less than a quarter of the proven fossil fuel reserves can be burnt and emitted between now and 2050, if global warming is to be limited to two degrees Celsius (2°C), says a new study published in the journal Nature today (1).

More...


9. May 2009 20:43 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

Google Power Monitoring Initiative

Imagine how hard it would be to stick to a budget in a store with no prices. Well, that's pretty much how we buy electricity today. Your utility company sends you a bill at the end of the month with very few details. Most people don't know how much electricity their appliances use, where in the house they are wasting electricity, or how much the bill might go up during different seasons. But in a world where everyone had a detailed understanding of their home energy use, we could find all sorts of ways to save energy and lower electricity bills. In fact, studies show that access to home energy information results in savings between 5-15% on monthly electricity bills. It may not sound like much, but if half of America's households cut their energy demand by 10 percent, it would be the equivalent of taking eight million cars off the road.

And now for the new part

But deploying smart meters alone isn't enough. This needs to be coupled with a strategy to provide customers with easy access to energy information. That's why we believe that open protocols and standards should serve as the cornerstone of smart grid projects, to spur innovation, drive competition, and bring more information to consumers as the smart grid evolves. We believe that detailed data on your personal energy use belongs to you, and should be available in an open standard, non-proprietary format. You should control who gets to see your data, and you should be free to choose from a wide range of services to help you understand it and benefit from it. For more details on our policy suggestions, check out the comments we filed yesterday with the California Public Utility Commission.


In addition to policy advocacy, we're building consumer tools, too. Over the last several months, our engineers have developed a software tool called Google PowerMeter, which will show consumers their home energy information almost in real time, right on their computer. Google PowerMeter is not yet available to the public since we're testing it out with Googlers first. But we're building partnerships with utilities and independent device manufacturers to gradually roll this out in pilot programs. Once we've had a chance to kick the tires, we'll make the tool more widely available.


There is no one-size-fits-all solution to providing consumers with detailed energy information. And it will take the combined efforts of federal and state governments, utilities, device manufacturers, and software engineers to empower consumers to use electricity more wisely by giving them access to energy information.

The bold is mine. There will be a place for rMeter in this environment.

10. February 2009 08:10 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

California Proposition 7 - How to vote?

I got my vote by mail ballot, and now I have to figure out how to vote. Most of the propositions an races are pretty easy, but Prop 7 is not. Most of the people I would normally listen to have come out against it. But the argument appears to be: it would be very hard, maybe impossible to meet the goals in the proposition.

I went looking for answers and found a lot of opinions:

Prop 7 opponents

Surprise opponents to renewable energy measure - Some reasons to like it

Renewals are not "practical" right now.

Implies that because a rich guy paid to get it on the ballot, it must be bad. But it has links to both supporters and opponents.

Prop 7 supporters

Looks like the "official hit piece" from the opposition

The state is already doing enough. Would not want to rock the boat.

Well, that is enough research, at least for now.

On balance, I think I will vote for it. Something needs to create some urgency in energy use. This proposition may well be flawed, but it is not "business as usual".

9. October 2008 19:55 by Kal | Comments (0) | Permalink

Calendar

<<  April 2017  >>
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
1234567

View posts in large calendar

Month List