Thomas Wagner of the Associated Press wrote a great article entitled, "Britain calls global warming calamity waiting to happen." In the article, Mr. Wagner addresses how seriously Tony Blair takes global warming and his dissatisfaction with U.S. environmental policy. As we all know, our current president refused to sign the Kyoto treaty, claiming that it would hinder the U.S. economy. Interestingly enough, Mr. Blair has aligned himself, environmentally-speaking, with George W. Bush's former nemesis of sorts, Al Gore. In fact, Great Britain has hired Mr. Gore to advise it on climate change. In addition, Mr. Blair has signed an agreement with California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to come up with technology to combat global warming. Given California's wealth of technological minds and innovative businesses, this seems like a great fit. I found the most poignant part of Mr. Blair's remarks to be the fact that even if Great Britain eliminated all of its 2% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, this progress would be wiped out in two years by the increase in China's emissions.

Mr. Blair is absolutely correct that the struggle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cannot succeed without the cooperation of the U.S. and quickly industrializing nations like China and India. I read somewhere recently that the world's resources could be used up by 2050, if we continue to consume them like we are today. Similarly, as the article notes, average global temperatures could rise up to 5.4 degrees in the next 50 years. Our babies will not even be in AARP then.

As population swells and the need for more energy comes into play, smaller nations cannot make up the difference with greenhouse gas limits. California is a great example of how technology can flourish in a large region while keeping emissions in check. How can we serve as an example for China and India if we refuse to take climate change seriously and ignore real steps to limit our greenhouse gas emissions? What happens when every young Chinese person wants a car, as is starting to happen? This alone could prove devasting for the climate. Yet, at the same time, we as Americans need to look at our own way of living and show how modern living does not have to mean skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions. As I've said before, the irony is that we are using archaic energy sources, like coal and oil, to fuel our technological advances. It's amazing that the biggest technological advances--those for developing energy in a carbon neutral way--are still extremely experimental and new. If we want to be technologically advanced, we need to move away from fossil fuels that are as old as our grandparents and great-grandparents.

I read an e-mail from an individual named Steve Miller, who is with some organization called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, I believe. His e-mail was an effort to mobilize the public in favor of a less stringent rule to reduce mercury pollution, than that proposed by an organization called the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC). He claims that the HEC proposal, which advocates a 90% mercury reduction, will be too expensive for consumers, with utility bills jumping up 16%. This is not what I understand to be true from the HEC. He also states that if we adopt this radical rule, all of the businesses will relocate from Indiana to other states. Really? If this is so, then why aren't businesses from other states where tough mercury rules are proposed, like Illinois, fleeing to Indiana, with our lax pollution rules and cheap power? California businesses must all be leaving the state or going under given California's tough environmental laws, right? The problem is that neither scenario is occuring. Businesses aren't all clamoring to get into the cheap power state from neighboring states and California businesses are doing just fine. Actually, better than fine, given that so many new ventures are hitting the alternative energy market while the iron is hot. If things continue as they are in Indiana, it seems that we'll be able to keep all of the highly polluting industries that want loose environmental restrictions, while keeping the alternative energy ventures and cleaner businesses away. I guess if we want a monopoly on dirty businesses then Mr. Miller is really on to something. Instead of cornfields, people can think of smokestacks when discussing Indiana. Is this really what Indiana wants to be known for? Where does the term "balanced" fit into that image?

As I was passing through Tuscola, Illinois today on my way back from Chicago, I stopped at Pizza Hut for dinner with my family. On the door to Pizza Hut was a sign for "FutureGen," and an exhuberant comment about how this proposed project will be great for the state and Tuscola. I don't know much about Tuscola, other than it being home to an outlet mall, but I wonder if its residents understand the implications of FutureGen. This project is a big "clean-coal" operation, in which there will supposedly be near-zero emissions from the coal that is converted into a gas. The problem is that any clean-coal project involves more dirty and dangerous coal mining and more waste products, such as sludge from the coal used. In addition, with even near-zero emissions, you still have emissions, including carbon dioxide. What is the plan with regards to sequestering the carbon dioxide so that this greenhouse gas is not released into the atmosphere? If it is going to be injected into the ground, Tuscola residents would probably want to check whether they are on an earthquake fault-line, as southern Indiana is. What happens if tons of carbon dioxide are injected into the ground in an earthquake zone, even if the fault-line is currently inactive? I'm not sure that the FutureGen masterminds even know the answer to that one. Given all of the open land in central and southern Illinois, perhaps towns like Tuscola could be in the running for wind farms, as opposed to vying for the FutureGen project.

I was thinking about the huge profits that oil companies are making these days and how that seems to belie the future of alternative energy. I had to ask myself whether we are really ready to shift at least some of our focus towards alternative energy when oil companies are booming and not feeling any hits it seems, even in light of our country's reliance on foreign oil. I forget what the profits Exxon had recently were, but they were hardly an incentive for the company to shift from the oil status quo. I decided that I should turn away from this news and instead, read about businesses that are facing up to the importance of alternative energy, even some that are currently quite reliant on fossil fuels. A prime example is Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic, who recently pleged all of the profits for a decade from the transportation division of his empire, to be used for alternative energy projects. This amount is estimated to be around $3 billion. Mr. Branson admitted that Virgin Atlantic's airplanes consume 700 million gallons of fuel per year. Many business owners would be justifying this, as a necessary part of running an airline. Instead, Mr. Branson indicated that he wants to combat global warming and is determined to research biomass as a possible source of fuel for his aircraft. Apparently, the biomass to jet fuel equation hasn't quite been figured out yet, but this seems to be the impetus for Mr. Branson's huge pledge over the next ten years.

I was so impressed by this commitment by Virgin Atlantic, as it is a huge move for a company so reliant on fossil fuel consumption to admit that there has to be a better way. I would be thrilled if Virgin Atlantic ended up figuring out how to make jet fuel out of biomass and being even more profitable for that. It is a myth that people who care about the environment and alternative energy are anti-business or don't understand how companies operate. On the contrary, as Virgin Atlantic's bold move indicates, there are companies aware of their impact on the planet, that realize they must take a bold step to set themselves apart from the pack. I don't doubt that Mr. Branson had some future business plans in his mind when he pleged the money but really, who cares as long as he is making a difference? In my mind, the companies that have a real vision for alternative energy in this era, when it is still catching on, are going to move far ahead of those still clinging to fossil fuels. While the oil company executives of today may be profiting handsomely, this may not be the future for the oil company executives of tomorrow. If oil companies want to continue to profit in the future, they are going to get in on the alternative energy wave, before they miss the boat. If they refuse to diversify their energy portfolios in a bigger way than they are today, there will certainly be other innovative individuals and companies that will jump in. I hope the latter make millions for taking a leap of faith.

I read an Associated Press article in the Evansville Courier & Press today entitled, "Site development begins for Illinois power plant." The article states that Peabody Energy Corp. plans to develop infrastructure for a $2.5 billion coal-fired power plant that will generate 1,600 megawatts of electricity. The coal will be supplied by a nearby coal mine. Gov. Rod Blagojevich attended the news conference kicking off the project and stated that "[t]his is about energy, energy self-sufficiency and energy independence...." He also stated that Illinois was "turning the clock back in many respects" for the coal industry, as it was going "back to how it used to be," with the exception of the new technology being applied. Environmentalists oppose the new plant as it may worsen air pollution, including mercury releases.

I was actually taken aback by this article as I was under some impression that Governor Blagojevich was actually interested in air quality issues, especially reducing mercury emissions. Instead of being forward thinking, he actually appears to be a throwback to the last century, when coal was the obvious choice for power. He even admits that this project reflects a turn backwards in thinking about coal--the "how it used to be" comment. Maybe he thought these remarks would bring some sort of nostalgic feeling on the part of many people. In my mind, however, it is scary and sad that reverting to the coal burning concept is seen by many as the way of the future. The mentality seems to be that if we just burn the coal we are sitting on until there is no more, we can rely less on foreign oil and other energy sources. As long as we have this "security," we shouldn't be so bothered by all of the air pollution and other coal waste that we are generating. After all, people in the early 1900s had to deal with it so why should we care? To me, this thought process could be used to justify us going back to the horse and buggy (which actually we might have to go back to someday if we keep using up all of our fossil fuels). In this day and age, can't we be more forward thinking and look for new alternatives that don't involve digging up half of the Midwest and West and burning dirty coal? We are surrounded by sun and wind, but we let much of that energy go to waste. If we devote so much of our focus to finding more coal reserves, how are we ever going to make the next leap forward and find true energy self-sufficiency that won't be dependent on fossil fuels?

i have seen a lot of those commercials lately, promoting the use of propane for water heaters, generators, etc. I went to the usepropane.com website for more information. Up until now, I have always thought of propane as something to use for a barbecue and little more. What I found particularly interesting was that the website describes propane as an "alternative fuel." The website states that propane is nontoxic and insoluble in water; since it is a gas, it doesn't spill or pool. According to the website, propane exhaust creates 60-70% less smog producing hydrocarbons than gasoline, 12% less carbon dioxide than gasoline, 20% less nitrogen oxide than gasoline and 60% less carbon monoxide than gasoline. This all sounded pretty good, but I still wondered exactly how propane is produced. I looked at another website that said it is derived from other petroleum products during oil or natural gas processing. I guess I should have known that, but I had never really thought about where it came from.

As I thought more about propane, I was still bothered by the "alternative fuel" description, that apparently the EPA said was appropriate. In a sense, it's actually good that propane is created through processing of oil and natural gas, in that it sounds like a secondary product that might otherwise be wasted. However, it is still essentially a fossil fuel and comes from sources that will run out eventually. In addition, the non-polluting image of propane may be somewhat misleading, as there are certainly still emissions--e.g. carbon dioxide, even if they are 12% less than gasoline. I'm not against the use of propane since it is a good way apparently to maximize output of fuel from oil or natural gas processing, but the "alternative fuel" label seems like a misnomer. How can it be an alternative to fossil fuel use, when it is derived from fossil fuel use? Let's call it what it is instead of applying a label to propane that doesn't fit.

As I was reading the entertainment section of the Evansville Courier & Press today, I noticed a blurb about Pierce Brosnan protesting a natural gas facility that is proposed for a location near Malibu. Other celebrities are also protesting the fact that utilities are investing billions of dollars to liquefy and ship natural gas over oceans. BHP Billiton, an Australian company, is proposing the terminal near Malibu. Apparently, Pierce Brosnan has a beach-front property in Malibu.

I was not really surprised that Pierce Brosnan would take this position, as I believe his wife is into the environment and he seems to be a great advocate for many causes. However, you have to wonder whether some of the other celebrities mentioned in the story (e.g. Halle Berry and Cindy Crawford) ever complain about the destruction to the environment or reliance on fossil fuels when it is far removed from Malibu. What happens when less attractive and/or less touristy places are affected by our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels? I honestly don't know which celebrities are really into alternative energy issues, but it seems like too many jump on the bandwagon only when it affects their own backyard. Otherwise, they are probably not the poster-children for alternative energy. I agree that Malibu is probably a terrible spot for a natural gas facility given its natural beauty. However, if we are going to continue with our huge consumption of fossil fuels as probably most celebrities do with all of their traveling, use of luxury items, filming of movies, etc., then we may have to accept that there is a big price to pay. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. In other words, if we want cheap coal power, we are going to have tons of coal pollution to deal with. If we are going to consume oil like crazy, then we have to deal with the destruction to the environment caused by drilling, refining and burning oil. Likewise, if we want to use the comparatively clean natural gas, then we have to deal with the fact that this has to be transported via pipelines or in liquid form by ships, sometimes in beautiful places like Alaska or perhaps, Malibu. If we want to protect one area only, then we seem to be missing the bigger picture, which is that no place is really safe from the effects of fossil fuel use when our reliance only seems to get greater each year that goes by. If we want changes on a smaller scale, then we have to reach for changes on a far grander scale. We must conserve more fossil fuels and truly focus on alternative energy as the way of the future. At least all of these celebrities in California can look to their own governor as a real leader on the alternative energy front. Other governors around the country are clinging to fossil fuel use as some sort of security blanket, which seems rather ironic, since there can be no long term security where there is such reliance on energy sources that are of a finite supply.

Clint Swett wrote an article in yesterday's Evansville Courier & Press regarding "smart meters." These meters communicate with utilities and instantly calculate the electricity cost of turning up a thermostat or running an appliance. These smart meters are becoming big business, with the U.S. spending $800 million on them in 2005, with the industry expected to grow 20% each year within the next ten years. This boom could be further escalated if California requires (as it has expressed) that all new homes in that state be equipped with smart meter monitoring by 2008. California may do this so that utilities can "control a home's thermostat during an energy crunch."

The concept behind these meters seems good and logical--i.e. that consumers will be more apt to conserve electricity if they are continually reminded of how much money they are spending or saving to run the electricity in their homes. In addition, if they refuse to conserve and there is an extreme energy shortage, a state could actually force conservation upon individuals by e.g. lowering their thermostats for them. These devices are clear reminders that each person really can make a difference in fossil fuel use and especially in states like California (that may make them mandatory), reminders that failure to conserve may be punished in a sense. If we worry about getting our cars out of parking garages before too much times passes, so that we do not have to pay a few more dollars, then we will likely adjust our behavior to minimize our energy bill. Up until now, it seems like it has been hard to pinpoint what changes in energy use will really conserve fossil fuels and money. This device spells it all out and eliminates the mystery. This removes one more obstacle to conservation.

In today's Evansville Courier & Press, I saw an Associated Press article entitled, "Paducah Power Plant Must do Drug Testing." It sounds reasonable that any power plant should conduct random drug testing to ensure safety and responsibility on the job, but when you take into account that the Paducah, Kentucky plant is a nuclear power plant, this concept seems to be even more of a no-brainer. It was kind of shocking to read that this order had to come down from the inspector general's office to make it stick and that the testing is only required to be done on "certain employees." The article doesn't explain who these certain employees are (just saying a "variety," including those carrying firearms) but one hopes that they are any individuals who have even a remote connection to running a nuclear power plant. Wait...Wouldn't this be anyone working in the plant?? At any rate, this mandate came "five months after an employee at the Paducah plant tested positive for methamphetamine, and more than a year after a bag of meth and pipes were found outside a building in a limited security area of the compound." One employee was banned from the plant after a positive drug test.

The scary thing is that even if nuclear power plants are supposed to be safer since the Three Mile Island near-disaster and the Chernobyl catastrophe, a precarious situation can be created by employees under the influence of drugs. It is astounding to think that drug testing was not strictly enforced before the inspector general said it had to be done and particularly, after these drug-related incidents at the plant. When Dick Cheney promoted nuclear power on T.V. because it is supposedly clean and safe, did he comprehend that some of the workers near these radioactive materials would be doing drugs? If we are even going to consider using nuclear power today and in the future, we had better be sure that there is no room for minds clouded with alcohol or drugs in the plants. These substances create an even greater chance that human error will impair the safe use of nuclear power. This danger gives rise to another argument in favor of wind power or solar power--i.e. the safety from an operational standpoint; even if human error were to impede the operation of a wind turbine or solar tower, it would still be a whole lot safer than a nuclear disaster.

I was reading an article in Fortune magazine entitled, "Why Gas Prices Dropped," by Nelson Schwartz. The first thing that caught my eye was the fact that 42% of Americans believe that lower gas prices are part of some Republican plot to keep Republicans in control of Congress. This thought didn't even cross my mind. Fortune's take on the situation is that the traders have a whole lot more to do with it. It seems bizarre that a bunch of sweaty people in different colored jackets can play such a huge role in energy availabilty and price determination. Is that how we want our future to be controlled in terms of energy? At any rate, the article explains that investors and hedge funds banked on this year being a repeat in terms of severe weather and the high fossil fuel prices that followed Katrina. Yet, when meterologists said in August that this repeat was not likely, the oil prices dropped. This decline was also sparked by the end of the summer travel season and the reduced weighting of gasoline in the Goldman Sachs commodity index. Traders cut long positions with their dumping of oil barrels like wildfire. According to the article, many traders waited too long to do this. The article cautions that oil prices could rise if there is really cold weather before Thanksgiving.

It seems bizarre to me that in this day and age with world oil suppliers being largely unstable countries, this constant threat to our oil access doesn't influence trading such that prices stay on the higher end more often than not. Once again, we are allowed to use oil as much as we want and take advantage of these plummeting prices, all along while the world seems to become more dangerous and often, antagonistic towards the U.S. As I expressed before, I think oil prices should remain higher and that extra revenue--obtained perhaps in the form of a tax--should be used by the federal government for research of alternative energy sources. I understand that the market drives energy to a great extent, but fearing a repeat Katrina and not as much, foreign threats to oil supplies, seems misplaced and irresponsible. Maybe I am just not comprehending how the future trading actually works for fossil fuels, but then again, at least I didn't fall into the 42% who suspected a Republican plot.

The U.S. EPA has announced that for the very first time, a U.S. manufacturing facility will be built adjacent to a landfill, specifically so that the plant can use the landfill methane for fuel. Jenkins Brick Company is building a $56 million plant in Alabama next to the landfill, which will initially obtain 40% of its energy from the landfill. As the landfill grows in size with added trash, the plant intends to satisfy 100% of its energy needs via the landfill methane; this should happen within about 10 years. This project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an amount equivalent to planting 14,700 acres of forest. This project was accomplished through the EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program and the pairing of Jenkins Brick and Veolia, owner of the landfill.

This project will add some jobs--about 55--but the economic reach of this concept could be far greater. Imagine having companies throughout this country using solely renewable energy and having no reliance on foreign oil or other fossil fuel supply for their stability and growth. It doesn't sound like Jenkins Brick is a publicly traded company, but for others that are, having a plant positioned next to a landfill could mean a lot of reassurance to investors and the stock market in general. No matter what the political climate and the effect on global energy supplies, there will always be garbage that creates methane--this we can definitely count on. As such, Jenkins Brick can probably expect fairly stable energy bills, since its source is right next door. There doesn't seem to be much volatility or concerns about how it will continue operations if its energy needs increase, as the landfill will correspondingly increase in size with added garbage.

In terms of the environmental standpoint, this project sounds great, as well, given that this manufacturing plant will actually work to clean the air, by reducing a tremendous amount of greenhouse gases that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere. Along with that huge bonus, placing factories near landfills seems like a great idea as it could serve to buffer residential areas; without these plants being proposed, landfills might otherwise be placed near homes, which creates the risk of groundwater contamination and other pollutants entering these residential communities.

All in all, I am very excited about this landfill project and I hope that other industries will do the same rather than looking to coal or oil to supply energy for their operations. Rather than compounding pollution problems, industries now have a chance to actually reduce air pollution by using methane from landfills.

I read a really interesting article in August's issue of the Smithsonian called, "Corn Plastic to the Rescue," by Elizabeth Royte. I really didn't know much about corn plastic until I read this article. The article discussed the pros and cons. Corn plastic is essentially polylactic acid made from corn, which is obviously a renewable resource. This is a huge plus of corn plastic, as conventional plastic packaging uses 200,000 barrels of oil per day in the U.S. It sounds like our plastic bags and plastic packaging are akin to gas guzzling vehicles. WalMart alone could save 800,000 barrels per year of oil by utilizing corn plastic; it plans to use 114 million containers of corn plastic per year. Corn plastic also uses 65% less energy in its manufacturing than conventional plastics. The downside of corn plastic is that although it is touted as "compostable" and "biodegradable," home composting techniques really won't change it into a degraded form. Rather, corn plastic will degrade only when subjected for 10 days to temperatures of 140 degrees--which is really only done in industrial-type composting machines, many of which are not open to residential corn plastic. Also, if corn plastic is simply dumped in a landfill, it will pretty much sit there just like regular plastic does. Further, corn plastic cannot be recycled with other plastics (like PETs, used commonly for soda bottles) and as such, it can interfere with recycling practices.

The bottom line seems to be that if people are feeling good about corn plastic because they can throw it in their garbage can so that it will magically degrade into some organic plant food, they are deluding themselves. On the other hand, we should not be so quick to rule corn plastic out as a future leader in the world of plastics, as toxins are not used to make it and it produces 68% less greenhouse gases in manufacturing than do conventional plastics. In other words, it definitely alleviates some of the stress on fossil fuels and creates less air pollution, which are huge bonuses. What we need to do though, is move away from our disposable mentality and work on better ways to reuse the corn plastic and recycle it into other products so that there will not be so much in landfills.

I saw an advertisement in a magazine this morning from Ford Motor Company. The ad features two young girls and uses that image as an indication that Ford is thinking of the future with alternative energy. I was expecting to read in a Ford ad about E85 vehicles, which it did mention; it is manufacturing more than 250,000 vehicles this year that run on E85. However, before that, the ad mentioned that it is developing vehicles that have 500 miles/gallon fuel efficiency. This blew me away as I have never seen one T.V. commercial or any other mention by Ford of a vehicle that can get this type of gas mileage. On the other hand, I have seen Ford E85 commercials countless times. With the exception of certain vehicles, like the Ford Escape hybrid, Ford is not known for having the most fuel efficient vehicles. For this reason, I was amazed that it was building vehicles that get almost 30 times the gas mileage of some of their SUVs. I wonder, though, how this will be achieved and how close we are to seeing cars on the lot with this gas mileage. How about mass-marketing vehicles that can even get 60-70 miles/gallon? Right now, only the Toyota Prius comes close to that. If Ford can manufacture vehicles that get 500 miles/gallon, then there seems to be no excuse for failing to have better gas mileage at this point on the most popular vehicles, including SUVs. Can't the technology that is being used to build the 500 miles/gallon cars transform the 17 miles/gallon SUVs into at least 30 miles/gallon in the meantime? I guess it all depends on what technology Ford is using for these highly fuel-efficient vehicles--Is it part E85? Hydrogen? Something else? The ad doesn't say. If Ford is doing such great things, why don't they toot their horn a bit more? I guess time will tell what the 500 miles/gallon vehicles are all about.

There was an editorial in the Evansville Courier & Press yesterday regarding alternative energy. The editorial pertained to the increasing population in the world and China's rapidly increasing need for more energy. With its booming economy, China will be competing with the U.S. for the world's energy supply. The editorial noted that we should work with other countries to develop alternative energy sources so that we can have more energy security in the future.

Although the editorial made a really good point, it didn't really go into how alternative energy sources should be developed. It seems that the U.S. really isn't in much of a position to dictate how China should handle its energy issues, since we are using much of the world's resources and burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate to satisfy our energy needs. In other words, we aren't setting the best example for China or India or any growing economy to follow. In addition, whether the war in Iraq was motivated by concerns for oil or not, we are giving the impression to many parts of the world that we will resort to military action to secure the oil we rely upon so much. Unlike other nations that can be somewhat isolationist, the U.S. can never withdraw into its own shell and hide from other nations, even if it is able to satisfy its energy needs fully with its own resources. However, it would be great if we could be less reliant on volatile countries in the Middle East to fuel our vehicles, airplanes, etc. Perhaps we could then send the message to the rest of the world that there is not an ulterior motive behind our military intervention.

There was an Associated Press article in today's Evansville Courier & Press entitled, "New coal plants raise big questions." However, the debate presented was not whether we should burn coal or move towards alternative energy but rather, whether we should use cheap conventional coal plants or the so-called "clean coal" plants that are more expensive and possibly, less reliable. Indiana has numerous coal-fired power plants, but Texas appears to have it even worse. In Texas, 16 new coal-fired power plants are proposed, 11 of them by TXU Corp. (Texas' biggest utility) in a five year plan. In Illinois, at least 10 new plants are also proposed. TXU claims that this move will actually help the environment to some extent, by eliminating some of the older plants. According to the article, critics of TXU say it's in a hurry to build these new plants before carbon dioxide restrictions come in the way of this plan. A Dallas attorney plans to sue TXU for Clean Air Act violations and this matter could end up in federal court.

As I was saying to a friend over the weekend, shouldn't we be beyond coal burning by now, at least enough that we don't need to actually increase the number of coal-burning power plants to this extent? We are on the cutting edge of technology and yet, to obtain the power to make all of the technological breakthroughs, we essentially have to burn dirty rocks we dig up from deep in the ground. At the very least, by now we should have figured out how to use coal in a true zero-emissions way, where we sequester all of the carbon dioxide. Yet, the reality is that utilities, such as TXU, have been able to burn coal in the same manner for decades with little governmental intervention to stop them. It sounds good that TXU will replace the archaic coal plants with the newer ones that bound to be somewhat cleaner and more efficient. Yet, where is the guarantee that this will even happen? Is there some moratorium in Texas that no new coal plants can be built until the oldest ones are taken off-line? This article didn't mention any. It sounds to me like that line is simply good PR. Perhaps a single old plant will be done away with after a series of new ones are built. Time will tell. Aren't we really digging ourselves into a bigger hole (both literally and figuratively) by becoming increasingly reliant on a fossil fuel that will be used up in a few hundred years?

I was glad to read that the EPA is currently requesting proposals to fund projects/activities that further the Methane to Markets Partnership, which is an international initiative to lower methane emissions globally. The partnership promotes the capturing and use of methane from operations such as the oil and gas sectors, coal mining, landfills and animal waste from agriculture. The EPA expects to award up to 20 cooperative agreements, with the total amount awarded being $2.5 million. Each award will be between $25,000.00 and $300,000.00 and can be granted to other countries as well as public and non-profit organizations.

Given that we are inevitably creating methane when we manage garbage, agricultural waste, and use fossil fuels, it seems that the least we can do is capture the methane and use it for energy. Otherwise, we are not only polluting the land with our activities but also, we are polluting the air by releasing tremendous amounts of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It seems ironic that in our desperate quest for new sources of energy, we often ignore an energy source that is literally right under our nose. Hopefully, more countries and organizations will see this action on the part of the EPA as an opportunity to jump on the methane bandwagon and put this often wasted energy source to good use.

I was perusing the Evansville Business magazine yesterday and came across an article by Beth White, entitled, "King Coal." It was kind of ironic to me that the first page of the story contains an enthusiastic comment about coal being "a gold mine of opportunity," while showing a picture of a smokestack spewing out pollution. The article discusses millions of tons of coal in the ground in Southwest Indiana, proclaiming that there is effectively a billion dollar gold mine underneath our feet. Coal is declared the "major domestic energy source" by Vectren's CEO, Niel Ellerbrook, and a key to future energy security. The article goes on to discuss coal gasification technology or IGCC, which "is seen by many as a breakthrough technology that could reduce the 'greenhouse gas' emissions blamed for global warming." The article further mentions pollution controls designed to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, which are being installed in some of the conventional coal plants.

It all sounds good on the surface, until you dig deeper, like you will in order to reach the coal--a lot deeper. Exactly how much of the state will need to be mined to give us this wealth of coal, given that more than one-third of Indiana is located above a 60,000 square mile oval of Ice Age coal? Are we going to dig up one third of the state? And how about Illinois, which has most of the Illinois Basin--the area of coal deposits discussed in the article? In addition, the article really glosses over the devasting effects to the environment that coal burning has, especially particulate matter that is known to cause serious problems to human health--just ask the EPA's own scientific panel. Even with limitations on pollution via controls, this technology is not fool-proof and is currently not very effective at limiting another major environmental problem, mercury being emitted from the smokestacks. Mercury enters our waterways, contaminates fish and can cause neuologic problems to children, even while they are still in utero. Moreover, IGCC technology is not perfected yet and is often planned without carbon dioxide capturing systems in place. Accordingly, the greenhouse effect will not necessarily be thwarted by plants solely using IGCC technology. Given the costs associated with IGCC technology, utilities are not going to fully convert to it anytime soon anyway. So, we are left with the conventional coal burning power plants, many already 40 to 50 years old.

In terms of the security issue, are we talking energy security for our lifetimes? If so, perhaps coal is the answer if we can deal with all of the pollution that goes along with it. Yet, if we are talking a permanent solution, coal cannot be the answer, as it is of finite supply, no matter how plentiful it is now. In addition, if it will simply be used as it is today, with no carbon dioxide limitations, the full climate change repercussions may be realized during the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren. What kind of security will there be then, when massive droughts occur in some areas, tremendous flooding occurs in others and there is all around chaos in the climate? We may simply be steering ourselves towards an eventual Ice Age, kind of like the one that created the gold-mine of coal that Indiana is sitting on today. Maybe we should leave a lot of it alone and make alternative energy the next leader rather than making coal king.

My friend, NJ, has a point that hybrid vehicles in a sense, simply prolong our use of fossil fuels by making vehicles that still use gasoline, but are more fuel efficient. I read in the Evansville Courier & Press that the first Kentucky-made Toyota Camry came off the assembly line this week. This vehicle is supposed to get 43 miles per gallon on the highway and 37 in the city. The Camry hybrid uses a 147 horsepower four-cylinder engine and 40 horsepower electric motor. According to the article, 21,430 hybrid Camry's had been sold in the U.S. as of September.

Although I think it's great that vehicles can be more fuel-efficient in this manner and thereby delay the inevitable tapping out of our oil supplies, maybe the hydrogen fuel cell is still the way to go. The more I read about hybrid vehicles and the "new" diesel vehicles, the more I think that they are akin to a good bandage to stop the bleeding for a while, but not a permanent cure for the wound. With a hybrid, we are definitely thinking outside the box to a great extent, just to maximize the efficiency of the vehicle altogether and in some cases, to introduce an ethanol mix to make the use of gasoline more secondary. Yet, by providing Camry hybrids and Prius hybrids to those who really seem to care about the environment and conserving foreign oil are we simply paving the way for manufacturers to develop Escalade hybrids and Expedition hybrids that get maybe 23 miles to a gallon? While this might improve the situation a bit, since many Americans are determined to drive SUV's no matter what, it might delay our real commitment to an alternative that will completely take us outside the fossil fuel box. People will think they've done their part to conserve, even while driving a vehicle that can seat 10, just because it happens to be labeled a hybrid.

The same idea would likely hold true if we started converting more coal to fuel. Even if this could be used for vehicles and might reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it does not eliminate our dependence on a finite resource and will simply delay our complete transition to alternative energy to run our vehicles. Until our vehicles can run completely on something we can replenish easily, we are still going to be addicted to fossil fuels in some respect.

A friend sent me an article regarding a solar cell made from spinach. It seems like a good way to make use of all of that contaminated spinach that had e-coli. Yet, there actually is more to it than that. Researchers at MIT, led by Marc Baldo, created a solar cell that uses photosynthetic proteins to convert light into electricity. They harvested photosynthetic proteins from the spinach and the bacterium Rhodobacter Sphaeroides and placed the proteins onto glass. The big challenge was to keep the isolated proteins working while on a solid surface. The proteins luckily kept their function when placed in a synthetic membrane. I couldn't make sense of some of the technical language, but I think it boils down to placing a layer of the membrane material and adding a semiconductor, an electrode and finally, shining some light on the combination to create a current. One drawback is that this type of solar cell is less efficient than conventional ones. On the plus side, a protein-based solar cell could be self-repairing.

I thought this story was very exciting because it shows how there are organic ways to produce solar cells, which actually may make the whole process more earth-friendly than it already is. Since toxic chemicals are used to make traditional solar panels, this may be an alternative to that. Maybe all of that discarded bagged spinach should have been saved for this purpose.

I was reading the Economist this morning and saw an article entitled, "Muddy Waters." The article discussed a horrific eruption of a "hot and noxious mud" that has flooded villages, factories, rice paddies and farm land near Indonesia's second largest city, Surabaya. 13,000 people have already been evacuated from the area. 125,000 cubic meters of land are being covered per day by the mud and this mud flow could continue for decades. Although the cause of this problem has not been pinpointed, some experts have alleged that a gas company caused or contributed to the disaster through drilling practices, including failing to encase the exploratory shaft. In an effort to address the situation, the Indonesian government has tried to divert the mud into the sea. Yet, this could cause another huge disaster, by hurting sea life and affecting people living on Java's eastern coast.

This article got me to thinking about how when mining or drilling for fossil fuels, we can upset nature's balance and throw it off kilter. Even when we are not directly polliuting the environment such as with using explosives to blow up mountain tops to obtain coal or by burning coal or oil, we can still damage our ecosystem by causing natural occurrences to happen in unnatural ways. Even if the mud is a "natural" material, it flooded this area of Indonesia in a very unnatural manner and with a vengeance. Perhaps this is nature's way of telling us to stop going to all lengths to satisfy our desire for fossil fuels. If we focus on wind turbines, solar panels or methane use from landfills or farms as at least a start for decreasing our need for fossil fuels, we can maybe also decrease the chances of catastrophic events like this one occurring in nature.

As I was reading Yahoo News yesterday, I came across an item where you can post a question for Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. Senator Lugar is fairly outspoken about energy issues; in particular, he is a big advocate for ethanol. I decided to post a question about mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants and also asked him whether alternative energy, in his opinion, will eliminate the need for new coal-fired power plants. We'll see if he responds to these questions. As I was reviewing what other people wrote (and some questions were really off the wall), I noticed that there were several regarding oil dependence. One writer noted that plastic bags are made from petroleum and given the proliferation of plastic bags in this country, why don't we use paper--since we can grow the trees ourselves to make them and we can recycle the paper fairly easily?

This question regarding the plastic bags got me to thinking about how changing one aspect of our lives could really decrease the demand for foreign oil in a huge way. I can see a downside to using all paper bags--e.g. using tons of lumber just to make bags and thereby, placing even more burden on forests. However, I do think this person is on to something. If we limit our production and use of plastic bags, maybe people will use fewer bags at the store, since paper bags seem to hold more. It always seems like when I go to the grocery store, the person bagging, puts about two items in one plastic bag. It just seems so wasteful. I'm not sure what's cheaper for the stores--paper or plastic--but perhaps more stores would eliminate the bagging process altogether, such that the consumers would have to bring their own bags. Sam's Club does not bag things, and people have no problem purchasing tons of items there. Convenience would be eliminated in some cases, but if it leads to a huge reduction in oil use to make plastic bags, then so be it.

Further, in terms of the pollution effect, I read somewhere that one plastic bag takes 20 years to decompose. Even if someone litters with a paper bag, it seems a bit more earth-friendly--although the flip side is that paper does not seem to decompose all that well when buried in a landfill. The better option seems again to be that if we simply use fewer bags altogether, there will be less waste to dispose of in landfills.

Perhaps another alternative to the paper or plastic debate would be to make more items from corn plastic. I think certain companies like Newman's Own, already use corn plastic for some items like salad dressing containers. I don't know much about how it is made or how it degrades (or how easily it can be recycled). However, it seems like at least an option for continuing to use a plastic product that uses something other than petroleum.

Until plastic bags are done away with (if that ever happens), I will continue to bring them back to the grocery store, where there is a place to return them so they can be recycled. Maybe this can also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, as we can keep using the bags over and over.

I saw an advertisement in the Economist for Ontario, Canada. The caption at the top of the ad says, "One natural resource in Ontario is mined more than any other." The natural resource referred to is the "highly skilled workforce," with 56% of the people having a post-secondary education; according to the ad, this is the highest rate of any industrialized nation. Basically, the ad is an effort by the Government of Ontario to attract business to this portion of Canada, as it indicates the competitive nature of the workforce there, in fields such as IT/communications, aerospace and biotechnology. The end of the ad then refers to the "renewable resource" of brainpower in Ontario, with new graduates every year in math, science and engineering.

I found this ad interesting because it serves as kind of a metaphor for both fossil fuels and alternative energy. In a way, it seems that the existing workforce that is being tapped into currently is the fossil fuel side, while the new graduates emerging from school are the renewable or alternative energy side. Or maybe the ad is a metaphor for something that doesn't seem to exist--i.e. a fossil fuel source that can be mined, like coal, that will never disappear and will always be replenished.

It got me to thinking about how smart the ad is, because it appeals to both those who want to exhaust what is already there and those who are more focused on something that will be renewed and never move into oblivion. Yet, can we really have it both ways when talking about real energy needs--not the workforce type of resource? I think most alternative energy proponents would concede that until we have enough infrastructure to run the world by methane, solar power and wind power, we need to use a blend of fossil fuels and alternative energy sources. Yet, many people, although they might completely go for the concept of using what's already there AND making sure there are endless replacements when talking about employees, do not share this vision with energy. The reality is that this vision does not transcend from a business concept to an energy concept. Instead, many individuals are resistant to any new players in the energy market; they simply want to continue using fossil fuels alone, until there are no more to use. It seems a bit ironic that these same people are probably drawn to the Ontario ad, with its references and allusions to energy.

I mentioned in a prior blog, the lower natural gas prices this year. However, I didn't realize that natural gas prices are 60% lower than they were last winter. I read this in an Associated Press article in the Money section of the Evansville Courier & Press. The article cautioned that natural gas prices are volatile and can shift at any time. Yet, based on current prices heating bills this winter should be about 20-30% lower than last winter. The actual natural gas cost is between 30 and 50% of what's on the consumer's bill; the rest of the bill pertains to the cost of processing the gas, transporting it via pipeline, local distribution and customer service.

It always sounds great to save money, but how is this huge of a reduction in cost going to promote conservation? Are the supplies just so abundant that our utilities can justify slashing prices this much? I am definitely not in favor of utilities jacking up prices and using the extra cash simply for bonuses for the top executives, but at the same time, I think cutting prices this much sends the wrong message to consumers. I don't proclaim to understand how the natural gas market operates or fluctuates. However, if the prices stay low, aren't we encouraging an exhaustion of existing supplies and overburdening our natural gas infrastructure? Why not keep the prices higher and use the difference for alternative energy research and development? In other words, can't the federal government mandate that utilities supplying natural gas turn over at least some of the extra revenue as a form of a tax, to help fund alternative energy projects? If more laws are passed, such as the Lehe bill proposed in Indiana, to require utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources, utilities may seek a way to keep prices of fossil fuels a little higher and use the extra revenue to pay for alternative energy sources. I'm not sure how exactly this would work, but I am really troubled by dropping prices on fossil fuels such that people will continue to use as much as possible. When these supplies are threatened or diminish significantly, consumers may be paying a fortune just to heat their homes with whatever energy source is available. If we instead push utilities to use extra funds to expand their energy portfolio to include more alternative energy sources, we may have a more secure and less volatile energy market in the future.

There was an article by Brian Corbin in the Evansville Courier & Press this morning entitled, "Hearing Slated on Mining Plan." The article stated that there will be a public hearing on the proposal to mine coal in a state fish and wildlife area. Black Beauty Coal has already been allowed to perform some exploratory drilling in the area. There are concerns over destruction to wildlife if explosives are used to strip mine the area and the length of time that it would take for trees to re-grow even if mined land is later reclaimed.

This article made me think about more issues with coal dependence. Even if we address some of the concerns about emissions from coal once it is burned, the destruction caused by coal mining will continue. If you watch the Jeff Barrie documentary, Kilowatt Ours, you will see a disturbing account of entire mountains being detonated in West Virgina, just to obtain the coal deep in the earth. Even if the land is eventually converted into a golf course or some other use, it will never again be a mountain like it was before. Similarly, when we start invading protected wildlife areas to get at the coal, it leads to something of a slippery slope--How far will we go in terms of mining to maintain our reliance on coal? Are we next going to be trying to mine Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon if we find huge coal reserves in those areas? In my mind, by focusing so heavily on finding new coal reserves, we are simply delaying the inevitable--i.e. the exhaustion of our coal supply. Instead of going to such lengths to find new coal supplies, it would be great if more states would focus on exploring alternative energy sources. The reality is that we will continue to use coal reserves from mines already opened or that are being opened in non-protected areas, but we really need to draw the line in terms of mining areas that are tourist areas or contain wildlife species that need special protection.

I read an article called "The Axis of Diesel" in Fortune about efforts to revive the diesel vehicle. When I think of diesel automobiles, I mainly think of those old Mercedes diesel cars. I really thought the popularity of diesel for anything other than trucks and commercial vehicles had come and gone. I was apparently wrong, as a new type of diesel vehicle is in production now. According to the article, at least six automobile manufacturers are launching a new breed of diesel vehicle, Mercedes being one of them. The appeal is that fuel efficiency will be increased by 25-40%, with a great deal of power in the vehicles. The downside is that the first models won't meet air quality standards in five states. Although diesel vehicles produce less in the way of greenhouse gases per the article, they produce "more smog-forming pollutants." The EPA even considered banning diesel vehicles about ten years ago. The way to combat the pollution problems has been to come forward with a very low sulfur diesel. There are strategies being discussed now regarding the reduction of other pollutants. The Mercedes model already comes with a device to combat nitrogen oxide and a filter for particulate matter. The EPA is apparently supportive of Mercedes' anti-pollution devices on these vehicles, althought it "has been leery of emissions systems that require maintenance...." Other manufacturers have not gotten as far as Mercedes yet on these systems.

The problem I see is that instead of finding a true alternative to foreign oil with these vehicles, we are simply making them more fuel efficient. Diesel fuel is still very polluting, which is especially evident given that this new breed of diesel vehicles can only be sold in 45 states. No matter what the controls are to limit the emissions, aren't these systems only as good as the owner's commitment to maintaining the same? How are the emissions checks going to be performed on these vehicles to make sure the controls are not faulty and are not emitting too much nitrogen oxide or particulate matter? To me, all of this seems like a waste of resources and a sign that consumers really don't want to sacrifice anything, even temporarily, in terms of the power of their vehicles or the V8 engines. I have heard that hybrids sometimes lack some of the power of their non-hybrid counterparts, but won't that be an improvement that comes with time? I don't really understand why we are wasting research and development time and money to create a better diesel vehicle when we could be perfecting a vehicle that runs on ethanol or at least, biodiesel. No matter how you depict them, diesel vehicles still don't seem like the answer we are looking for. They seem to me like one more way to keep us dependent on foreign oil.

My theory that government commitment to alternative energy will propel the free-market to run with this concept, seems to be holding true in California. I have been pleasantly surprised that Govenor Schwarzenegger has been such an instrumental force in advocating for alternative energy--surprised I guess because I never would have pictured him so passionate about this. The latest issue of Newsweek has a small article entitled, "Go Green, Get Green." The article states that the "clean-tech industry" has moved forward in light of the governor's bill mandating that California businesses cut their greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2020. So far in 2006, "$1.4 billion [BILLION!!] in venture capital has flowed to companies such as solar, ethanol, biodiesel and 'green' building firms." The article then discusses certain businesses that may profit greatly in California, such as Luz II, a solar firm that recently signed a deal with Pacific Gas & Electric to construct a 500 megawatt solar plant in the next four years. According to the article, Pacific Gas & Electric, once bankrupt, has now become a leader in the clean-energy market, with investments in solar, wind and hydropower. Another California firm called Biodiesel Industries, Inc. may profit a great deal as well, with its conversion of used cooking oil to biodiesel fuel. Further, Bloom Energy apparently plans to convert zircon sand into fuel cells.

While other states are hesitant to dive into alternative energy, California is serving as a real leader for other states to follow. Given the huge population in parts of California and the countless businesses located there, the governor's 25% cut in greenhouse gas emissions really seems bold and ambitious. The wonderful thing is that instead of the economy in California faltering due to these changes, companies are breaking into the alternative energy market and prospering. This leads to my long held belief that cleaner energy and a strong economy can really go hand-in-hand. While there will always be industries that pollute more than others, California's revolutionary move should pressure them into making some dramatic changes if they want to stay competitive. When are other states going to jump on this bandwagon?

I attended Alcoa Warrick Operations' annual environmental open house today. It was an opportunity for members of the public to go to Alcoa to listen to a presentation on their environmental efforts and to ask questions/give feedback to Alcoa management. It was informative and there was a ton of information presented in the form on charts, graphs, etc. However, I was surprised to be bothered by something that was not even discussed, in terms of energy usage. Alcoa is currently spending $439 million for power plant pollution controls, such as scrubbers, a measure which should be commended. Certain substances, like sulfur dioxide emissions, will be reduced by over 95%. I guess for some reason I assumed that if they are spending almost $500 million on new technology, this would somehow make Alcoa's power plant more efficient--i.e. that it would need less coal to generate the power to run the aluminum smelting operations. I knew that aluminum production is highly energy intensive and that Alcoa has a coal-fired power plant as its main power source for the smelting portion of the operations. Yet, I was taken aback that the power plant will actually burn more coal after the upgrades are completed, which is almost hard to fathom when the power plant burns something like 19 truckloads of coal per hour now. When I asked Alcoa's environmental manager why this is so, he said that the pollution control technology will use a lot of energy and therefore, more coal will need to be burned. It didn't seem like many other people were struck by the irony--more coal needs to be burned to operate the pollution control technology to clean the pollutants out of the coal being burned. I asked whether some alternative energy source had been investigated to power the pollution control technology. I was told that nothing was found to be as effective as coal. I sort of translated this into the fact that coal is cheaper and accessible, although I'm not sure what else had been considered.

It got me to thinking about how complicated this concept really is; in essence, we are creating more pollution by mining coal and burning coal (as well as disposing of the coal residue) to operate technology that is designed to make coal-fired power plants less polluting. Do we want the dinosaur plants without this technology that burn less coal or do we want cleaner air while burning more coal and causing other forms of ground pollution in the process? None of these issues are really black and white, which I have to remind myself. It does make me think even more so, however, that really the only true answer in the future is to move more in the direction of alternative energy. The concept of making coal into a clean energy source always seems to have a major catch, like burning more of it just to clean its own pollution before it reaches the atmosphere. Of course, critics could say that even alternative energy methods have some pollution factor--e.g. using steel made at a steel mill to construct a wind turbine or a solar tower. Yet, the difference I see is that wind and solar sources have more of a one-time pollution effect, which is the initial construction of the turbine or tower. After that, the energy is clean and can hopefully offset the emissions that occurred in the original production stage. Meanwhile, with coal, there always seems to be recurring pollution, no matter how clean you want to make it sound.

I was reading a fascinating article in the Economist entitled, "Visions of Ecopolis." There are plans to build Dongtan, an eco-city near Shanghai, China, which will be self-sufficient in energy and water. Energy will be generated from wind turbines and bio-fuels from agricultural waste. Most trash will be recycled; the city will not even have a landfill. Food production will be done without agricultural chemicals. Public transportation will be via water taxis that are solar-powered and buses with hydrogen fuel cells. Dongtan will not allow gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles. The city will be compact rather than sprawling, to faciliate easy access by foot or bicycle. Wetland areas will be protected, with a buffer zone, and a forest will be planted, as there is no natural forest there. Buildings will be highly energy efficient, such that the amount of energy required to heat and cool them will be reduced by 70%. Non-polluting industries like call-centers will be located in Dongtan. The city will have its first residents in the next five years and will eventually be home to 500,000 people.

I was actually kind of shocked to read about this grandiose plan, given all of the negative publicity given to China in recent years as a large polluter and home of many dangerous coal mines and dirty coal-fired power plants. There are certainly some negatives to the plan according to the article, such as concerns about the carbon emissions that will be generated by visitors from Shanghai and tourists living further away in getting to the eco-friendly city. Nevertheless, I think that the people who masterminded Dongtan deserve a lot of credit for thinking through the different variables. Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, was so inspired by this project that he plans to build a zero-carbon suburb in London. It would be wonderful if more lawmakers and heads-of-state around the world took this example and ran with it, perhaps perfecting it a bit more by e.g. finding a way to reduce the cost of some of the technology. If eco-friendly cities are really going to take off for the masses, they can't only be places that are affordable to the rich. However, if we don't start somewhere, we will never get to the point where eco-friendly cities and towns are accessible to most people. With all of the disregard for the environment in rapidly industrializing countries like China, it is great that some in China want a modern city that is also respectful of the environment. It seems that we need more of this vision in our own country right now.

I saw an article this morning in the Evansville Courier & Press regarding an Owensboro, Kentucky company that plans to open a biodiesel plant using soybeans. This plant alone, will have the capacity to produce 50 million gallons of biodiesel per year. What was even more impressive was the following statistic: Americans used 75 million gallons of biodiesel last year, which was up from a mere 500,000 gallons consumed in 1999. That's an increase of 74.5 million gallons in about six years! New and expanded biodiesel operations could add about 714 million gallons of biodiesel capacity, according to the article. When you think about how many diesel-fueled buses and trucks there are on the roads today, delivering goods across the country or taking our children to and from their schools, this increase in biodiesel production and consumption could have a huge effect in this country. Not only will it eliminate the need for a lot of oil but also, it should help with pollution generated from these large vehicles. I don't know exactly what burning soybeans does environmentally but I would guess it would be a lot better than diesel pollution and the particulate matter from diesel vehicles. I read somewhere that ethanol use actually helps alleviate some of the effects of global warming--does it get rid of carbon dioxide?? If that is true, I would guess that soybean burning might have some positives in that regard, too. In any case, as the article mentions, when you have school buses getting eight miles/gallon, biodiesel seems like a definite step in the right direction. Kentucky is using biodiesel for many of its school buses now, which is a great way to support the local farms growing the soybeans and the companies producing the biodiesel. I guess we're still left with the question of where the energy is coming from to produce the biodiesel; hopefully something cleaner than coal or tire burning. It would be great if soybeans could supply the energy to convert other soybeans into biodiesel.

I was watching a program this morning on HGTV about what type of home you can get for a certain price in different parts of the country. One of the homes featured was a condo in Boston that was EnergyStar rated and was built to be "green." The developer stated that the owners could save about $1,600.00 per year on their energy bills because it was so energy efficient. The insulation was made of recycled newspaper and all of the windows and appliances were energy efficient. The condo was also eco-friendly by having carpet made of recycled materials and recycled glass tiles. It got me to thinking about the way architecture can influence our use of energy. If builders and developers make the choice to use eco-friendly materials, there is less energy consumed than making products from scratch and less waste to dispose of. In addition, when they make their buildings highly energy-efficient, there is less demand on fossil fuels once the buyers move in. The energy-efficiency is further a huge selling point because it saves buyers money, which is in turn, good for the economy by encouraging the real estate market. There is simply no reason in my mind for new construction or rehabs to be anything but energy efficient and at least somewhat, eco-friendly. Energy efficient methods may sometimes be a little more expensive upfront, but when the owner is saving up to 40% on energy bills (as this program indicated), there is a huge savings down the line. In addition, eco-friendly products such as bamboo and cork floors and recycled glass tiles are more beautiful than ever.

People want to save money, but do not want to compromise their sense of style for their homes usually, so the energy-efficient and eco-friendly approach in condos such as the one featured in the program are a win-win situation. Making homes highly energy efficient and using recycled materials, may open the door at least a little for more alternative energy options. After all, if there is more conservation of fossil fuels by a developer's smart design and upgrade options in a homes, utilities may see less interest in these traditional energy sources and may make more of an investment in e.g. wind or solar power. Further, with this shift in architecture and design, utilities may start to see the light that homeowners really do care about using less fossil fuels, so long as they are saving money and living in a nice space.

I guess it sounds like a bit of a cop-out that some people only want to conserve if it means lining their pockets with money and buying products that are still attractive, but if it adds up to more people doing their part to consume less in the way of fossil fuels, so be it.