Yesterday, I saw yet another one of those advertisements for learnaboutcoal.org, with yet another kid talking about how great coal is. The latest ad showed a kid talking about how we have more coal than there is foreign oil and how we will have this supply for hundreds of years. The kid then says something to the effect of "that's worth learning about." I don't particularly like these ads because they suggest that coal burning is something that is beneficial for the next generation in kind of an absolute way. The reality is that yes, coal will probably continue to be burned when these kids get older for electricity. Yet, what would really be great is if kids today focused their energy on researching alternative energy rather than an inherently very dirty fossil fuel. It really bothers me given the amount of mercury that is released into the air when coal is burned (more with certain types than others) and the effect that this mercury can have on children's health. Kids who have actually suffered problems from mercury would probably not be featured on one of these ads.

Further, even if IGCC technology is used to make coal a cleaner energy source, we are still left with the question of what to do with the carbon dioxide that is generated when coal is burned. There is talk about injecting it into the ground, but I don't think this process is close to being perfected. So, if coal continues to be burned without the IGCC technology, we will still be dealing with more emissions that can contribute to global warming. When the kids in these coal ads get older, will they still be so gung-ho about coal if the scientists' fears about global warming's effects hold true?

I think that the creators of these ads need to stop hiding behind kids and having them promote coal. Since they are promoting a dirty product, perhaps they should do their own dirty work of advertising it themselves.

One of the headlines in today's Evansville Courier & Press reads, "Natural gas price relief ahead." According to the article, "higher levels of natural gas storage and production this year could provide some relief for consumers during this winter's heating season...." In some ways, I was very happy to read this. As I mentioned in a prior blog, some industries in southern Indiana want to burn tires for energy, supposedly because natural gas prices are too high. Hopefully, these lower prices will eliminate this 'need' for tire burning and our state's financial incentive for the same (under the guise that tire burning is alternative energy). I was also glad to read about these lower prices, as natural gas is certainly cleaner burning than many fossil fuels; if one is not going to use alternative energy, natural gas use seems a whole lot better from an environmental standpoint than burning coal. However, I always feel that these press releases about lower oil prices or lower natural gas prices mean to a lot of people that conservation can now end and we can return to our previously wasteful ways. I sometimes wish that rather than lowering prices, any extra revenue could be used by utilities to explore more alternative energy options. With higher prices, the public would likely demand other choices and alternative energy, such as wind power, could be presented as another viable choice. If prices are hard to beat for oil or natural gas, there is just no urgency to make the move to something new or to hold back on usage. I'm still wondering how desperate we have to get with supply shortages and high prices before people finally realize the need to move away from fossil fuels. I'm not saying we should forget about using natural gas supplies that we already have or have access to, but I do think that we need to stop putting all of our eggs in one basket--that of fossil fuels.

I think sometimes as we focus on alternative energy, we forget that in our daily lives, we may be inhibiting our country's move in that direction. I am talking about our day to day reliance on the energy we use from coal, oil and other fossil fuels. The utilities have a point that people must be willing to conserve to ease the constant demand on fossil fuels. After all, if there is less demand on these resources, perhaps the utilities will have more opportunity to focus on exploring alternative sources. Many people, including sometimes me, forget that conservation involves everyone during their part to minimize energy use when possible. I started implementing this philosophy in small ways, like not using any lights in the house during the day and just raising the blinds to let natural light in. I also turn all appliances and electronic devices off when not in use and try to unplug as many as possible (since many devices such as televisions, use a lot of power even when in the off mode when they are plugged in). I try not to run the dishwasher until it is full. I also keep the temperature in the summer in the house at 78 degrees, to ease the demand on air conditioning. These are certainly small steps and I'm sure I could and should do a lot more. Yet, at least it's a start. If we, as consumers, refuse to conserve, recycle, reuse, etc., then we are basically telling our utilities to keep exhausting what energy sources are currently available, such as coal and oil. If we ease our demand a bit, we will be in more of a position to push our utilities to shift to alternative energy sources and move alternative sources out of the experimental stage. Menawhile, if we continue with the mentality of using everything whenever we feel like it, we may not ever be able to convert to primarily alternative energy and we may be too late to avert the grim consequences of global warming.

As I was dropping my daughter off at school this morning, I noticed a traffic sign--a big arrow sign--that was solar powered. Solar Technology, Inc. is the manufacturer of the sign. I looked up this company on the internet to see what other products it makes. It manufactures arrow boards, message signs, etc., all of which are solar powered. It got me to thinking about other outdoor signs and lighting needs--e.g. all of the energy used in Times Square. Why can't more of our outdoor lighting be solar powered, especially in areas where so much is consumed at once for advertising? When there was a heat wave this summer, causing a much higher demand on the power grid than normal, all of the lighting displays at Times Square were turned off temporarily. Exactly how many kilowatts are used there all day, every day? I have the same question for the countless lights on the strip in Las Vegas--for all of this glitz, how much are we using in kilowatts? If we are going to continue enjoying the luxuries of using so much power simply as an aesthetic, showing-off kind of thing, at the very least, we should be investigating how to supply some of this power via alternative energy. If some of these big signs advertising various companies, products, hotels, casinos, etc. could be solar-powered, at least we could feel better about being so wasteful and overboard in our power usage. Right now, a lot of that power is probably coming from coal plants, which aren't nearly so attractive to look at. There is a real price for the appearance of luxury in some places, which is the pollution caused to other places that are away from the spotlight. Improved solar power technology could be used not only to direct us on the roads, but also to direct us to the stores we want to go to, the hotels we want to visit, the casinos we want to gamble at, etc.

I was thrilled to read an Associated Press story this morning in the Evansville Courier & Press regarding the revival of a bill in Indiana to mandate that utilities derive a specific percentage of their energy mix from renewable sources. Rep. Don Lehe of Indiana and U.S Senator Richard Lugar are backing this bill and should be commended for it. The bill would require Indiana utilities to obtain at least 10% of their power from wind, solar, etc. by 2017. The utilities and our governor, Mitch Daniels, of course, vehemently oppose the bill. Yet, when I think about this, I am left wondering, WHY? First of all, the bill allows 11 long years to reach the 10% mark. The bill would be a boom for the economy by creating new jobs for wind turbines, solar technology, etc. The state is already pushing hard for ethanol and biodiesel, which is viewed as renewable energy. Coal, while plentiful, is highly polluting (unless super-expensive and experimental IGCC technology is used) and will eventually run out. With newer environmental regulations coming into place in Indiana, like the CAIR rule (which puts stronger limits on emissions from power plants), utilities focusing primarily on coal may have to fork over millions just to keep their aging coal plants' emissions down. Once e.g. a wind turbine is in place, the energy is free and does not require dangerous mining or dirty waste products. Further, given the 10% proposed requirement, 90% of the utilties' product mix could still come from dirty fossil fuels.

So, what is the real problem? Do utilities simply have a knee-jerk reaction to fight anything that requires or mandates them to do something, regardless of what it is? Is it that utilities are concerned that they may not have a monopoly on power if other players come in and build wind turbines or solar panels? is it simply a resistance to change and new ideas since coal in Indiana has been the way for generations and the infrastructure to mine it and burn it is already in place? No matter what the reason, I still can't see how the utilities and the governor are right in this case. Take wind power, for example. The fact is that wind turbines bring money to local farmers, who can lease one wind turbine on a farm for $4,000.00 to $9,000.00 per year; wind turbines do not cause global warming; wind turbines give energy such that new coal plants may not be needed; and government commitment to wind power may be needed to convince investors, entrepreneurs, etc. to fully back it. I really see this bill as exactly what we need in this state and many others.

I saw a statistic in Fortune magazine this morning regarding landfill methane. It stated that 1,400 megawatts of electricity could be generated each year by 600 landfills that the EPA indicated were big enough to convert methane into energy. Yet, these landfills (unlike Puente Hills near Los Angeles) have not invested in this technology. This would be enough to power about 900,000 homes per year. This led me to thinking more about methane. When I wrote about landfill methane before, I was impressed that Puente Hills invested this technology given its size and how much landfill waste was involved. Now I realize that the sheer size of Puente Hills was probably the very reason this project was undertaken in the first place; it may simply not make sense to install this infrastructure in smaller landfills because not that much power may be produced. However, I am still impressed that Puente Hills has accomplished this feat while others have not. I would think that these huge landfills would mostly be in or near major metropolitan areas, areas that consume tremendous amounts of power. Because energy tends to be imported by these cities and exported by more rural areas with all of the coal-fired power plants or nuclear power plants, residents in the urban areas may not even think about (or care about) where their electricity is coming from. Yet, if methane near these urban areas is harnessed and converted into electricity for the cities, it may ease the burden on the more rural areas. Perhaps this would allow utilities time and money to focus a bit more on fitting other means of alternative energy into their product mix? In any case, I feel that there should be more incentives in place for these larger landfills to develop the infrastructure to use this methane. If the U.S. government wants it used (to decrease the greenhouse effect of the methane rising into the atmosphere and to increase energy availability) it should either cough up money to make this happen or give huge tax breaks. Maybe this is already being offered in some manner. However, it is obviously not being done sufficiently, as methane to power almost 1 million homes each year is being wasted.

I was flipping through a magazine today, trying to find some inspiration for my blog. I was excited to see a picture of windmills in an advertisement. Yet, I then realized that the company with the ad, Huawei, is in the telecommunications industry (wireless networks, etc.), not anything related to alternative energy. In fact, when I went to the Huawei website and searched under 'wind,' nothing came up. I then wondered what type of market this company was trying to appeal to with its ad; it almost seemed misleading to me. The ad said, '"Like the idea of a pinwheel to a powerful wind turbine, Huawei innovates for potential growth based on customers' needs." Is the idea that whether you need a simple version or a more complex version of the same concept--like something that spins in the wind--Huawei is your company? I guess the wind power reference was a metaphor for some telecommunications stuff.

In any event, the ad hit me as something of a red flag in that every company seems to be creating an image of being "green" or advocating cleaner energy (even Peabody Energy, a huge coal company, which claimed in a recent ad that coal was a clean energy source...and it didn't even reference clean coal technology). Apparently, companies are understanding the public's growing demand for a cleaner environment, including an increasing interest in alternative energy. Yet, one has to be careful to separate companies who can back up their commitment to the environment and renewable energy, from those that just talk about it or just use these images to promote unrelated products. I guess the good news is that the Huawei ad further supports my thought that most people view wind turbines as aesthetically pleasing; if they did not, Huawei's marketing people would surely not base their whole ad campaign around this image.

Well, I think hydrogen fuel cells are officially the next big thing, since every business magazine seems to have an article about them, including the latest issue of Fortune. Of course, the creators of the EEstor would probably disagree, since they are promoting their battery-type device rather than the fuel cell. Yet, there is no mistaking that the gasoline-powered vehicle may someday be something kids hear about from their grandparents but can't conceptualize--kind of like explaining a black and white T.V. or a record player (or better yet, an 8-track player--remember those?) to a kid today.

In Fortune this month, Alex Taylor III (ataylor@fortunemail.com) wrote an article entitled, "The New Fuel Thing." The article discusses GM's entrance into the field of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, with its Chevy Sequel. The only problem: the red engine light flashed on, on a test drive and the car stalled nine times on a 20-mile circuit, according to the article. However, these appear to be glitches that can be fixed fairly readily. GM has gone beyond what other automakers are doing with hydrogen fuel cells; GM has developed a vehicle with no gas and no harmful emissions. Despite all of its financial woes, GM has invested $1 billion in this program, with plans to invest lots more. Mr. Taylor then writes that GM plans to install the fuel cell in its Equinox. Given California's recent adoption of limits on greenhouse gas emissions and other countries' committment to the same, automobile makers appear to be banking on a switch from the internal combustion engine according to this article. Some of the challenges include increasing the storage capacity for hydrogen in these vehicles and increasing the number of hydrogen pumps available around the nation. It seems to me that if consumers like the look of the vehicles, like the drive (hence, eliminating the Sequel's clitches seems key) and like the price of the vehicles and the hydrogen fuel, GM may really be onto something. Perhaps this is just what GM needs to reinvigorate itself. One thing the article does not address is the safety of hydrogen, which was raised in one of my prior blogs and the comments posted to it. Gasoline can cause an explosion, so is hydrogen's explosive potential really that much more of a risk? This is one question/concern I still have. I might have to e-mail Mr. Tayor regarding this.

From time to time, I see letters to the editor in the Evansville Courier & Press from a guy who says how bad eating meat is for the environment. As a vegetarian, he states that the whole process of raising livestock and getting meat into the grocery store, creates a lot of pollution. From what I have read, he is correct, particularly with some of the chicken places in Kentucky. Too bad I can't seem to kick the meat habit myself. However, I got to thinking, what can be done to make farming practices better for the environment and possibly, alternative energy production? I looked on the U.S. EPA site and saw a reference to the "Methane to Markets" program. A lot of people don't realize how much in the way of greenhouse gases we are producing when we dispose of our trash, medical waste, manure, etc. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and the less rising into the atmosphere, the better. I previously wrote about the Puente Hills landfill, where methane is captured from the landfill to be used as power. A similar concept (and also promoted by the "Methane to Markets" program), is to capture methane from livestock's manure management systems for clean energy. The energy can be converted into electricity or can be used to fuel gas-fired equipment, which could definitely help with a farm's energy needs. Since manure is an inevitable part of farming, it's good to know that the U.S. EPA has thought of a way to help farmers use it to help offset some of the costs associated with running their farms. Given that the agricultural sector is responsible for over 50% of human-related methane, it would make no sense to squander this energy source. Although I can't recall where I read it, I saw an article not too long ago about a farm in Vermont that was actually selling their methane to provide energy to area homes. Although the methane-capturing infrastructure is expensive to install on a farm, the farm in question was going to be able to pay it off and move into the profit zone within a few years, I believe. Whether the farmers use the methane themselves or sell it on the open market, one thing it clear to me--This is a win-win situation for the farmers who can be more profitable and for the environment by reducing the methane escaping from the farm waste into the atmosphere.

Business 2.0 had an interesting article in October's issue about EEstor, a Texas company that claims it can power a vehicle 500 miles for $9.00. The company is developing an energy storage device "that could finally give the internal combustion engine a run for its money...." The "energy storage device" is not really a battery, because there are no chemicals or hazardous materials. However, it functions like a battery in that it charges and stores electricity in about 5 minutes. It supposedly powers a car for about 45 cents/gallon. Apparently, this device is no wimp, in that it gives cars A LOT of power. The EEstor-powered engine costs a little more than a traditional one and replaces the gas tank, exhaust system and drivetrain. This electric car concept is really interesting. However, I still have some questions. Aren't you then encouraging even more fossil fuel reliance by burning say, coal to make the electricity to charge the energy storage device? Exactly how much electricity are you using to charge the device for 5 minutes? It sounds great to get away from gasoline, but wouldn't a hydrogen or other alternative fuel vehicle be a better option environmentally and as a way of freeing ourselves from dirty fossil fuels?? I like the notion of this, but I'm still concerned that it does not really fit into the realm of alternative energy, since you need to plug the device in. I wonder if it could be charged with a solar panel? Then, I'd really be excited about this.

I saw an AP headline this morning in the Evansville Courier & Press entitled, "Oil falls as supply threats ease." The article said that "[t]he likelihood of finding $2-a-gallon gasoline in some parts of the U.S. is increasing by the day." According to the article, the dropping prices reflect a decreasing concern over supply threats. To me, the dropping gas prices are good news and bad news. On the good side, oil companies seem to make a killing when gas prices are high, at the detriment of people needing to pay the high prices just to get to work. Meanwhile, on the negative side, how are people going to learn to conserve and express interest in alternative energy if gas prices always seem to come down? Are people really going to want the hybrid when they can buy a gas-guzzling SUV without being penalized with high gas prices? I see so many huge SUVs with bumper stickers saying "Proud to be an American" or something to that effect; yet isn't it somewhat bad for America for people to be driving vehicles so dependent on gallons and gallons of foreign oil? I saw a Ford Excursion today with a license plate with "Environment" at the bottom--you can purchase license plates saying "Education" or "Environment" among other types. It seemed a little ironic to me, given that a gas guzzling Excursion is hardly doing anything for the environment or decreasing our dependence on fossile fuels. I think that if we really want to get away from our dependence on the gas tank, we need to stop being excited about dropping gas prices just so we can fill up our huge vehicles that get 12 miles to a gallon.

As I was out shopping the other day, I was thinking about how our lifestyles contribute to all of the energy problems--not the best thought when you want to buy stuff. Yet, it is all the 'buying stuff' that sometimes makes us hyprocrites, myself definitely included. I realize in my day-to-day life that recycling of say, a can, is good, because it takes less energy to make another can out of a recycled can than to start from scratch. However, when it comes to decorating and buying cute knick-knacks, I don't generally think too heavily about how much non-renewable energy went into producing and shipping the items I am buying, to our local stores. The good news is that I and apparently, many other people, are starting to think about these things a little more. Recycled, reclaimed, sustainable, salvaged, etc., etc. are suddenly chic terms that people are looking for when they buy products. When you think about it, why not buy an item made from a reclaimed piece of wood, rather than buying one where energy needed to be put into cutting a whole tree down? Of course, some of this may just be hype, but it still shows a growing trend for consumers to think a bit more about where their household items are coming from and how they are made. One noteworthy example is an advertisement I saw in the New York Times on Sunday for ABC Carpet & Home, a pricey store in NY and NJ. The ad referred to "the organic landscape of modern - Fall 2006." Dining tables had recycled steel legs, stools were made from salvaged tree stumps, shelves were made from old rooftop material, etc. Shipping these items from their place of origin to Manhattan still probably involves using a lot of fossil fuels but hey, nothing's perfect. Hopefully, this is one design trend that won't go out of style next season.

Now that I'm involved in a lot of environmental causes, I receive some eco-friendly catalogs. My favorite one is called VivaTerra, which sells a lot of home decor items. Most of the items are made from natural or recycled products, like reclaimed lumber or recycled aluminum and glass. As I was looking at the catalog, I saw a reference to NativeEnergy.com. This organization promotes wind power, including wind turbines on Native American reservations. They also have a program called CoolWatts, which I found really interesting. Here in Indiana, renewable energy is only about 1-2% of the energy mix, while coal supplies more than half of the state's power. This leaves one with few choices if one wants to use say, wind power. NativeEnergy.com provides another option. With the CoolWatts program, you can purchase renewable energy credits in an amount equal to the average number of kilowatts a home uses in one year. The credits are then used for wind power, where it is available. So, even if there is no wind power option available in your neck of the woods, you can still offset your own carbon footprint a little by promoting wind power usage (and a real market for wind power) in other areas. I think this would be a great idea for a gift for someone interested in alternative energy. There are some other sites, such as one for adopting a windmill; I'm going to look into that as well, maybe even as a class project for one of our local schools. I like the idea of being able to do something to encourage wind power use, even if our utilities in Indiana aren't moving in that direction yet.

Paul Foy of the Associated Press wrote a story published today in the Evansville Courier & Press regarding nuclear power. It dawned on me as I was reading the story that nuclear power is not simply being discussed as an alternative energy prospect for the future in this country but rather, it is in high gear in many respects. As I noted in a prior blog, I can't help but think of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl when I think of nuclear power. However, many don't have the fears I have or else, maybe nuclear power really has evolved such that those fiascos are to be left in the past. For one thing, all of the controls and monitoring boards in one plant in Utah from the 1970s are being replaced and will be run via laptop. A laptop running a nuclear power plant--Wow. However, there are some things modern technology can't yet overcome with nuclear power. For instance, there is a real shortage of uranium concentrate, with consumption already outpacing production each year by 80 million pounds. The shortage is being fed by stockpiles, which are being used up. Another huge problem is the question of where to put the spent fuel rods--probably a "not in my backyard" type of problem in many respects. A repository is supposed to open in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but not until 2017. According to the article, it may never open. So, then what does one do with the spent fuel rods? This ever-present problem may always be the wrench in the argument that nuclear power is clean power. How can it be clean power when you have tons of radioactive waste that have no where to go? I look at nuclear power still as a polluting form of energy production, but one with a delayed pollution factor as opposed to the immediate pollution one gets with say, burning coal. While it was kind of interesting to read how high tech nuclear power plants are becoming, some of nuclear power's biggest problems seem to be ones that have been present for some time and that may never go away.

I was asking myself today, is clean air or cheap coal power more important to most people? In suburban New York where I grew up, people were recycling and environmentally concerned even back in the early 1980's. Although there are no coal-fired power plants in suburban New York that I am aware of, people there would probably gladly pay more for and prefer cleaner, renewable energy. Meanwhile, here in southern Indiana, many people would rather deal with the coal pollution than focus on renewable sources. When I first moved to Indiana, I thought it was so ironic that people would rather have cheap energy and look at smokestacks (which are in view from even some very beautiful communities around here), than push their utilties to use renewable energy and clean up the air. Is there really an irony here??

Is it just that people from this area are used to seeing coal plants and don't think much of it anymore? Is it that truly clean air has not been a priority around here because people often equate polluting industries with good jobs and low unemployment? Does it just seem too difficult and expensive to convert a community tradition of coal power to a new one of renewable energy? When I noticed my first smokestack around here, I was a little freaked out. Then I realized just how many coal-fired power plants are around here. It seems to me that many in our area fear that speaking out for clean air will mean the end of economic stability in our region. They may feel that they do not have the luxury of demanding clean air over cheap coal power, because our community is so tightly wound around the coal industry. Meanwhile, they may believe that those in areas not at all dependent on the coal industry can speak against it all they want, because their economies are completely independent of coal power. After pondering this a little, I realized that it was not all that ironic that people in southern Indiana and other places where the coal industry is big, would support coal power over clean air. After all, a smokestack to many means people are working to mine coal, truck coal in, burn coal, etc. One company in town burns 19 truckloads of coal per hour to run its aluminum industry. Although I was kind of taken aback by that number, many probably read that and equated it with economic prosperity. How do we change this kind of mind-set?

I saw a political advertisement on T.V. the other day from Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. Although I have mixed feelings about him as a senator, I was thrilled when he backed proposed legislation to obligate utilities to derive a certain percentage of their power supply from renewable sources. To my knowledge, the proposed bill has not yet been passed, but may be revisited next year. At times, Senator Lugar does not seem all that committed to solving some of our environmental problems, but at least he is trying to make a vision of renewable energy a reality. Rather than simply talking about weaning us from foreign oil, he is outspoken about renewable energy--e.g. ethanol production--in Indiana as a viable alternative.

As I noted before, I think ethanol has a lot of potential, but there are some logistics that still need to be worked out. With other renewable sources, like wind and solar, there are some cost issues and other logistics that need to be worked out as well. For instance, I read that there is a shortage of the material to make solar panels currently. Yet, even with some kinks with using renewable sources, we have to start using them on a broader scale, or the technology won't move forward either. As an analogy, I think back to what cell phones looked like not too long ago; you needed a bag to carry one. Now, with almost everyone in possession of a cell phone, they are so small that they are easy to lose in your purse or even your pocket. The demand and the production process pushed the cell phone technology forward tremendously in only about 10 years. If we start using more alternative energy sources, companies will start competing like crazy to make ethanol, wind turbines, solar panels, etc. in a way that is better, more efficient and cheaper than others in order to make a profit. In my opinion, there will come a time when the government won't have to be so actively involved in promoting alternative sources; the momentum of the market will take hold. Of course, let's hope that in the drive to produce certain alternative energy like ethanol, companies won't increasingly resort to highly polluting ways to do this, such as the tire-burning energy source I mentioned in a prior blog.

When Senator Lugar expressed his interest in the bill mandating utilities to derive a percentage of energy from renewable sources, Vectren (a utility in the midwest) opposed it, saying that we should use plentiful coal until market forces show a demand for renewables. Yet, how will market forces drive renewables forward if the government doesn't show any commitment to them? The government should get the ball rolling so that technology and the free market system can then grab the ball and keep running with it. Otherwise, utilities will simply cling to coal, oil, and other fossil fuels until there is no more supply. Then we will be turning to alternatives not in a gradual manner where technology can improve and perfect the process over years for using these sources, but in complete desperation. I would prefer the former to the latter.

Am I the only one who didn't know that the international space station is using solar panels? I saw several articles today about the delivery of the solar panels and the unfurling of the same, by the astronauts on the space shuttle. With a $100 billion space station being constructed, our government must have a lot of confidence in solar power as an energy source if it is using it for the space station. Or is it simply that there's no other effective way to get power there? I guess we can't set up a coal-fired power plant there. In any case, to me it sounds interesting that one of our most major investments in alternative energy lately has been in space. I wish our government was as ambitious about solar use down here on earth. It would be so nice if there was more of a symbiotic relationship between our approach towards energy on earth and in space--e.g. using the sun for both. Granted, the sun can't be an effective energy source for everything on earth at this point, but it seems like the latest technology being used in space could maybe bring us closer to that point.

This morning I was looking at the Economist and saw an advertisement from Shell Oil. Usually, I don't pay much attention to those kinds of ads, since every oil company, chemical company, etc. seems to have something out now to say how "green" they have become. However, it caught my interest because it mentioned a hydrogen fuel pump installed by Shell at a gas station in Washington, D.C. Apparently, this has been there for two years; I didn't know these pumps existed yet in this country. Hydrogen sounds so great as an alternative fuel source, because the by-product is water vapor. According to the Shell website (Shell.com), hydrogen cell vehicles are much more efficient than cars with internal combustion engines. Shell estimates that by 2050, there could be 700 million vehicles using hydrogen fuel. If this is so promising, I wondered, why is there still only one pump in this country providing this fuel? How difficult and expensive is it to build cars that use hydrogen fuel? Can cars on the road now be modified to use hydrogen? How about existing hybrid cars--Can they use hydrogen somehow? How safe is it in terms of the explosion risk if a car gets into an accident? The Shell website left a lot of unanswered questions.

I saw a program recently about Iceland, which is working towards being completely self-reliant in terms of fuel, because of its hydrogen use. Iceland has hot springs and obviously, lots of water around it (not to mention a much smaller population than this country), so hydrogen seems like a really smart choice for that nation. If companies like Shell really lead the way on hydrogen use in this country and have something of a monopoly for a while, I don't really take issue with that if it means less dependence on foreign oil. I would really be curious to see how this concept materializes in the next few years.

I had never looked at landfills as viable energy sources until fairly recently, when I was reading about methane. Methane is a gas which emanates from landfills, rises into the atmosphere and can contribute to global warming. However, when it is harnessed and burned, there is actually a benefit to the environment, as less of this potent greenhouse gas simply rises into the atmosphere. I wondered whether a methane project could be used to power homes around Evansville, as is going to be done in other parts of the country. Yet, I thought the infrastructure might be too costly or complex for most landfills to use. Imagine my surprise then, when I watched a program on the National Geographic Channel recently about a huge methane project at the Puente Hills landfill that services Los Angeles County. I believe the methane captured from that landfill powers 100,000 area homes. Apparently, even with this "mega-landfill," it was worth the expense to install the infrastructure to capitalize on the methane and generate power from it. Given the massive size of this landfill, I can only imagine how much methane would otherwise drift up into the atmosphere, had this system not been built. I wasn't sure what would happen to the methane-capturing system once the landfill is filled to capacity and closed (and perhaps, converted into a golf course). I do not recall the program mentioning how long the methane gas rises from the garbage disposed of there. It did say however, that there were newspapers in a preserved state from the Nixon era; it seems that with a lack of oxygen reaching the buried trash, the whole decomposition concept does not necessarily hold true. Hopefully, whatever methane continues to emanate from Puente Hills even after it is closed, will be utilized for energy. If Puente Hills can do it, why are not more landfills doing this and local governments encouraging the same?

Wind power seems so promising, yet it still faces obstacles. It is disheartening when even the Kennedy family has a problem with wind power, because it may block their family's view of the water from their compound. I suppose they have yet to live within view of a smokestack. Many in this country would presumably prefer looking at wind turbines to a coal-fired power plant. The Cape Wind project--a large wind farm project--was almost doomed for a while (at least in part due to the same argument presented by the Kennedys). I think it is sad that some people view wind farms as eyesores, when in other parts of the country (e.g. Tennessee), wind farms are tourist attractions. I wondered recently about how feasible wind turbine use would be in a large city like Chicago, which is obviously known for being the "Windy City." I then read a week later that there are plans to install wind turbines on top of the Daley Center, the main state courthouse in Chicago. It would be great if this project takes off, such that other highrises do the same. Maybe some cities can produce more of their own power with projects such as this one, instead of importing power from other areas. Wind power could then be a power source in urban and rural areas. As with the tourists going to the wind farm in Tennessee, many tourists would probably love to see the wind turbines when they visit cities like Chicago. Hopefully, people along the coastlines who dislike wind farm projects will see the light as well.

Over the weekend, I was thinking about the definition of "alternative energy." I wondered exactly how this was defined. Two definitions are listed for it on Dictionary.com. One is, "energy, as solar, wind or nuclear energy, that can replace or supplement traditional fossil fuel sources as coal, oil and natural gas." The other definition listed is, "energy derived from sources that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment." Apparently, however, not everyone agrees with these definitions. One case in point is a company in Indiana that wants to burn tires for energy, due to high natural gas prices. This is being billed as a form of alternative energy by some, as well as a good way to recycle used tires. Although I'm not crazy about the idea of tires clogging up landfills, I would rather have that than the air pollution due to burning tires. It also concerns me that if a permit can be granted fairly easily for one company to do this, others will want to do the same, such that they are not spending so much money on natural gas. Where can the line be drawn? If this company can do it, how will the pemitting authorities say no to others? My thought for using the tires in a better manner comes from an article I read about sidewalk materials. I believe it was in Chicago where crushed up tires were going to be used instead of concrete on certain sidewalks, which would also be easier on pedestrians' backs when they walked. This use and using crushed up tires on playgrounds or for pavers in backyards sound like great ways to keep tires out of the landfills. Burning them, however, does not sound like what whomever created the phrase "alternative energy" had in mind.

There is a lot of enthusiasm these days about so-called "clean coal technology." Just today, I read an article in the Evansville Courier & Press about a request by Vectren and Duke Energy (two large utilities around here) for a permit to build an IGCC plant. IGCC, or integrated gas combined cycle, technology does have a lot of promise for converting coal into energy with much less air pollution than conventional coal technology. In this process, coal is converted into a gas which then produces steam. Steam then turns a turbine to generate electricity. This technology cannot be called completely clean, however, as it will obviously encourage more coal mining (which is inherently destructive--just ask people in West Virginia where mountains are being blasted away) and will create a by-product to be disposed of afterwards. I don't know a whole lot about the waste product; I'm not sure how well it is disposed of or how safely it can be used to convert to other products. I had heard it could be used for road material or some sort of drywall-type product but again, I'm not sure how that will work. The other major issue is that although there is discussion about capturing carbon dioxide with IGCC technology and removing it so it doesn't get emitted into the air, this is apparently quite expensive to do. The proposed plant mentioned in the article (to be located in Edwardsport, Indiana), could be changed to remove the carbon dioxide, but this is not part of the current plan. Accordingly, even this cleaner coal technology will not stop global warming and in fact, may tend to hasten it.

Although an older plant will be retired in place of this new plant, it is my understanding that the older plant was not used that much anyway. IGCC is surely an improvement to the older dinosaur plants (many of which have avoided using modern pollution controls) and takes into account that where there is coal, people will want to use it for cheap electricity. However, given that destructive mining will continue, waste products from the coal will need to be disposed of, carbon dioxide will continue to be emitted into the atmosphere (aggravating global warming) and coal supplies will run out in a few hundred years, this technology seems like an expensive bandage rather than a permanent solution. If we have to use it until wind power, solar power or some other form of truly clean power can take its place, so be it. Yet, let's only add such a plant if a frequently used, dirty, older plant is retired in its place.

Today I was reading a column by Deroy Murdock of Scripps Howard in the Evansville Courier & Press regarding nuclear power. It got me to thinking, is nuclear power really an answer?? The argument by Mr. Murdock was that because nuclear power does not create carbon dioxide, environmentalists should embrace it. After all, if we are really concerned about global warming, why are we not in turn warming ourselves up to the use of nuclear power? France obtains 75% of its power from nuclear energy. Maybe he is right that if we are that concerned about global warming, we should jump on a power source that makes cleaner energy and that is widely used in other parts of the world. However, a part of me still thinks of nuclear plants as the scary type that almost caused a nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island. If that disaster was not averted, areas such as Gettysburgh, Pennsylvania could have been uninhabitable for many years. Even worse, are thoughts of Chernobyl, where disaster was not averted. On the recent anniversary of this disaster, one program stated that the area around Chernobyl will be unsafe to live in for at least one hundred years. Radiation levels there are still off the charts. In addition, some makeshift roof that brave workers put on it after the disaster, is falling apart. It is therefore, hard for me to think of nuclear power as a good alternative, even though plants are probably a great deal safer now in light of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Another aspect of nuclear power that is a negative is the waste. Where is all of the radioactive waste going to go?? I don't know of anyone who would be eager to have this waste disposed of in their town or city.

Further, with 9/11 still on our minds, how can we feel excited about nuclear plants that could be a potential terror target? In my mind, such plants would be akin to a bullseye for terrorists, since a disaster at one could have huge immediate and long-term effects on many people in our country.

I agree with Mr. Murdock that those concerned about global warming have to consider every option to alleviate that problem. However, I am hoping we can come up with a fix besides nuclear power.

I was reading an article recently about a huge solar tower which will be built in Australia. It was interesting because Australia, like the U.S., has huge coal reserves for cheap power. Instead of sitting back and relying on coal, some enterprising Australians have a vision for solar power being used on a grand scale. This tower is supposed to provide energy to 100,000 homes. The cost is steep--I think somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 million. However, as with most technology in its early stages, this initial tower will probably spawn more efficient ways to produce subsequent towers. In addition, once the tower is built, its power source--i.e. the sun--is free. The tower will produce power at all times of the day. It will capture the heat from the sun, which will rise through the tower and move wind turbines (and hence, generate electricity). When it's dark out, heat captured in ponds around the tower by day, will be used to produce electricity in the tower.

China, with its insatiable need for electricity, has expressed interest in this tower project, as has California (which is another positive environmental measure Governor Schwarzenegger has taken). There is talk to build similar towers in other areas of the southwest U.S., as well, such as in New Mexico or Arizona.

Hopefully, this bold solar project will be the jumpstart for a solar power movement in homes, schools, etc. I recall my friend's dad in the 1970s making a solar addition on his house. It worked great. The project fit with his image--a kind of hippie man who kept bees, but who worked at IBM by day. It doesn't seem like solar panels have changed much since then. I always wondered why this idea didn't catch on. If this huge solar tower can't get attention for solar power, I don't know what will.

This is my second time doing this blog, so bear with me. Today I was thinking about ethanol, after reading an editorial in my local newspaper about it. I have mixed feelings about ethanol. I like the fact that it will help a lot of struggling farmers (or at least, it seems like that would logically follow), but there are quite a few kinks that need to be worked out at this time. The editorial mentioned just how much corn production will need to be increased to generate enough ethanol to meet current and future demands, as well as feed people. Will we end up growing corn at the expense of other crops, just to make ethanol? Also, how are we going to produce ethanol with the corn?? It sounds great when you see the commercials for a car manufacturer building cars that can run on ethanol, because it is cleaner and renewable. However, here in Indiana, I have read about coal-burning power plants as the proposed energy source for some ethanol plants. Another plant may burn tires as the energy source. Doesn't sound so clean anymore, unfortunately. Ethanol takes a lot of energy to produce. So, I think we need to focus on ways to make ethanol more efficiently and in a cleaner way, such that we are not causing more pollution in order to make a less polluting fuel. Further, how are we going to transport the ethanol to its destinations?? Are we going to use trucks that run on gasoline or diesel for fuel? Again, it seems counterproductive if the intent is to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and/or put out less pollutants into the air.

I really believe ethanol and other bio-fuels, like the use of soybeans, have lots of potential. Yet, before we get ahead of ourselves, let's try to work on some of the potential pitfalls.

Hello there and welcome to my blog! I wanted to address alternative energy sources, given the many problems in the world today with pollution due to using fossil fuels and our country's dependence on foreign oil. I am very interested in the environment, particularly because there is a lot of air pollution in southern Indiana where I reside, due in part to all of the coal-burning power plants. I keep asking myself...Isn't there a better way?? Although I am not deluding myself into thinking that we can immediately switch over completely from coal and other fossil fuels to wind power, solar power, etc., I do think we can do a lot more to explore other options and press for a change. Why are we not showing our utility companies that we want them to invest more in other sources?? We need to demand more renewable and clean sources and perhaps pay a bit more, before our utilities will want to come around. If we want cheap coal power, for instance, our utilities will continue to deliver the same. It is up to us to push for a change. I thought this would be a great forum for exploring other options. Thanks for visiting and please share your thoughts with me!