I received a letter and memo yesterday from Alcoa, summarizing the discussion at Alcoa Warrick Operations' recent environmental open house. The memo contained the most common questions raised at the open house, as well as the company's answers to the same. Apparently, I was not the only one who was a little taken aback with the fact that Alcoa will have to burn substantially more coal in the future than it does currently, in part to operate the scrubbers that are supposed to clean pollutants out of the coal being burned. Alcoa indicated that it cannot rely on alternative energy to supply its power needs at its Warrick Operations given that it "needs nearly 600 MW of electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year." Although Alcoa has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions from its smelting and rolling operations, its power plant greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise. Alcoa claims that the largest wind turbines would produce approximately 2 MW of electricity, 40% of the time (due to an absence of reliability and wind speeds). In addition, hydroelectric power is deemed unsuitable for the area near Warrick Operations. In the memo, Alcoa then goes on to a huge discussion of a hydroelectric power operation at some other plant, which to me seems overboard and distracting. After all, the open house was designed to address issues at Warrick Operations, not what's going on in Tennessee or North Carolina.

Upon reading this memo, I considered the dilemma that Alcoa faces, in that alternative energy is unlikely to satisfy its enormous energy demand. Yet, it seems that Alcoa is unwilling to use a mix of alternative energy and coal. The memo also begs the question of why hydroelectric power is not "viable" in the area of Warrick Operations, given that the plant is practically on the river. Is there not enough current there? No room to build a dam? Is it unfeasible due to boat traffic? The memo doesn't answer these questions. It also tosses wind power aside, without indicating its source for the unpredictability determination of wind. Perhaps Alcoa is correct that these alternative sources just will not work for Warrick Operations. The next question I have then is why can't the plant be made more efficient, such that the smelting operations and scrubbers can use less power? When a company spends about $400 million on scrubbers, you wonder why they cannot help with the efficiency of the plant. I am certainly no engineer, yet I wonder why burning 20-some truckloads of coal per hour is an acceptable practice, even in the power-intensive aluminum industry. Is the technology really so antiquated that these plants have to be as inefficient as they probably were when first built? I am not oblivious to Alcoa's predicament, as they are trying to turn a profit in a relatively flat aluminum market. I also appreciate the company managers' accessibility to the public and efforts to improve Alcoa's environmental performance. However, I still think it takes outsiders to challenge the company's enormous power usage and attitude towards alternative energy sources. After all, what will happen to Alcoa in the future when the coal reserves are tapped out?

I know this is a little off-point, but I was thinking about an article I read this morning in the Evansville Courier & Press entitled, "House falling apart." The problem is that a house in southwestern Indiana is sinking into the ground due to the presence of an underground coal mine from the early 1900s. The house is uninhabitable currently, due to the ground caving in as a result of the old mine. This is a fairly new subdivision and a golf course community. The lady who purchased the house was from Toledo, Ohio and didn't know about the prevalence of old mines in the area. She is now having trouble recovering money due to the damage, as she did not know that she needed to buy mine subsidence insurance to cover this type of occurrence. From what I have read in prior articles, the presence of this mine was not noted on old plats--or at least, that is probably what the developers of the community will likely argue.

As I read this article, I thought of the article I had also read in an area business magazine touting the wonderful windfall the area will have if it accesses all of the coal in the Illinois Basin, the coal reserves underneath much of Illinois and Indiana. Coal taken many decades ago from the Illinois Basin is apparently what led to this house disaster. When companies and many individuals get excited about the financial gains to be made in accessing fossil fuels, do they consider how this will impact members of the public in their daily lives? Consider how residents in parts of West Virginia have endured contaminated water and seen their landscape destroyed due to coal mining. Or consider how individuals like this woman can't even live in their homes due to the effects of coal mining. Although situations like hers are probably relatively rare in this country nowadays, I wonder how the public's health and safety may be being compromised in developing countries like India and China, where the need for enormous amounts of cheap power are growing by the day. The pollution alone from fossil fuel burning is a concern, yet there are secondary concerns as well, such as the impact that mining or drilling can have on the public. I suppose it's different in those areas of Texas where residents are currently allowing oil drilling to be conducted on their properties when they own the land and can obtain the financial benefits of the same. Yet, when unsuspecting people live on an old mine or near areas where fossil fuels are being obtained without reaping any financial rewards, it seems unfair for them to suffer in this manner. I suppose it gives all of us one more thing to research before buying a home--i.e. Is it near or on an area where fossil fuels are or were being secured?

I was reading an article in Fortune entitled, "Why the Price of Uranium Has Gone Radioactive." The article discusses how uranium prices have gone sky-high recently. The main reason for the price hikes has been the revival of the nuclear power trend, particularly in countries like Russia and China. It appears that people are getting over their Three Mile Island and Chernobyl fears, although I can't say I share this sentiment. The jolt in nuclear power's popularity has led to hedge funds and other investors to dive "into the thinly traded uranium market." Eight million pounds of uranium have been purchased by investors this year alone. According to the article, the price of uranium has risen from $7.00 per pound six years ago, to $60.00 per pound today. This price could rise even further.

After reading this, I started wondering how this price point will affect nuclear power. What is deemed by many as the solution to global warming, may not be sustainable if these prices continue to rise. After all, if many nuclear reactors in the construction phase are going over-budget already, how can they be built and operated cost-effectively with the volatile uranium market? It sounds to me like the main thing that might cause a fall in uranium prices, would be another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl incident, which would cause nuclear power to once again fall out of favor. It seems kind of ironic that what is causing the hike in uranium prices--i.e. the intense interest in nuclear power plants--may be what ends up making them cost-prohibitive. I guess that's how the market works. After thinking about the government subsidy issue yesterday, I pondered how the free market is extremely unstable as well. What's in vogue today, may be over tomorrow. If we want to avoid global warming and nuclear power is the supposed solution to that, then what are we going to do when it becomes too costly to use nuclear power? Our world leaders need to really reflect on the climate change issue and consider the cost of generating power from nuclear plants or alternative energy sources. Although government subsidies of green power may be flawed, free market control over the nuclear industry doesn't sound too secure either.

I was reading an an editorial in the Economist this morning entitled, "Green dreams." The author of the editorial raises some legitimate concerns about the future of green power for investors given the government subsidies used for promoting it. My knee-jerk reaction was to scoff at this criticism. After all, do we have an option for government subsidies to jump-start alternative energy when our planet's future may depend on it? Don't we need government subsidies to keep alternative energy competitive with fossil fuels? Yet, I then realized that the author had some valid points. The editorial raises the fact that a carbon tax might be a much better option for boosting alternative energy. It makes sense; why not tax those industries putting out most of the climate changing carbon dioxide? The editorial notes that with government subsidies, we are putting faith in our politicians to support alternative energy. Yet, what if the constituents dislike the subsidies in the future? What happens to alternative energy then? We are counting on our politicians to pick green power winners, which may not always be the case. Take Germany, for example. Its government has purchased numerous solar panels due to subsidies, yet the panels would work better in sunnier climates. The point of the article seems to be that we should be thrilled with our government's current boost of alternative energy, but that we should not count on its interest always being there. What happens to investors then? More importantly, what happens to our planet then? These are definitely important points to consider.

I was reading an article in the Economist about California wineries using solar panels entitled, "Dionysus, meet Helios." The article shows a photograph of Arnold Schwarzenegger sipping a glass of wine. I had never really thought about how energy intensive winemaking is. With the chilling, fementing, bottling, etc., tremendous energy is consumed. Only a few dozen Californian wineries use the solar technology at this point, some predict this will change dramatically. California has huge "incentives for businesses and homes to adopt the otherwise unaffordable technology." Pacific Gas & Electric provides susbstantial rebates for use of the technology and there are both federal and state tax incentives for the solar panels. According to the article, most of the wineries break even in seven to eight years. The one winery featured in the article has no energy bill now and even has a surplus of electricity. The wineries can sell their power to the state's grid in the summer when the panels generate the most electricity. The wineries can then buy back the power from the grid later at a cheaper rate. The drawbacks to the solar panel use are still cost (apparently even with the rebates and incentives offered), due to the shortage of silicon. The other issue is a space factor--the panels use a lot of it.

The use of solar power by these California wineries is great example of how alternative energy can satisfy even very energy-intensive businesses. It's wonderful when the businesses, utilities and government can work together to make alternative energy a win-win situation. Pacific Gas & Electric is a terrific example of a once-failing utility capitalizing on the alternative energy boom. Hopefully, more California businesses will follow suit. Given how California is often a trend-setter, other states and businesses are bound to copy this model if it works for these wineries.

I was watching the DVD the other day for "Mission Impossible III." I thought it was really interesting that in one of the opening sequences, a huge wind farm is featured in an action scene. In the scene, the helicopter containing Tom Cruise's character is being chased by another helicopter. The helicopters weave in and out of the wind turbines, with the other helicopter eventually crashing into one. The following scene shows one of the huge turbines crashing down.

Even though the scene is brief and uses the turbines in a rather menacing way to some extent, the turbines could also be seen as saving the good guy, by blocking the enemy helicopter. On a different level, I thought the scene was interesting in that it serves as a sign of our times. Although this scene contained the usual shootings and explosions, this scene also showed something more complex--i.e. an intricate, synchronized set of steel turbines, moving in the wind, as the small (by comparison) helicopters tried to navigate through them. It demonstrated that alternative energy souces, like wind energy, can be powerful forces to reckon with. There was a time, even a decade ago, where you might see a burning oil rig or another fossil fuel source in an action sequence, but a wind turbine or solar power source would be unheard of. A popular movie like this shows that there is more mainstream understanding and acceptance for alternative energy, like wind power, in this day and age. Hopefully in the future, we will see more solar power, more wind power, more hydrogen fuel cells, etc. featured in films. If these concepts can become fixtures in our popular culture, the general public will likely embrace them with less fear and apprehension.

I was reading an article on Yahoo about an experimental fusion reactor that is going to built in southern France. Advocates of the project, that will cost approximately $12.8 billion, state that fusion could supply as much as 10-20% of the world's energy by the end of this century. I found the article confusing, as it spoke about fusion in terms of the sun's energy, generating energy with sea water and then spoke of radioactive waste. It left me puzzled as to what is being used in the fusion reactor to generate the energy and why, as opponents proclaim, radioactive waste will be a by-product. The article cleared up my confusion a bit by defining fusion for the non-physicists like me. According to the article, fusion powers the sun and other stars and "involves confining hydrogen at extreme temperatures and pressure to create a highly energetic gas." Per the article, "at 180 degrees, the gas undergoes nuclear fusion, releasing energy that can be used to generate electricity." I believe what this article is then saying is that the hydrogen source would be the sea water, which would create an energy source akin to the one that powers the sun and stars. Is the radioactive waste product created because the sun also has radiation? In other words, the same type of energy that powers the sun and stars would create a similar type of radiation? I'm still a bit confused on that one, since I thought the only hydrogen by-product was water--maybe that's only true with fuel cells and similar uses of hydrogen.

I don't feel too bad about failing to comprehend this project, as the scientists obviously have yet to master the fusion process, as well. Although it sounds a bit science-fiction-ist, perhaps this kind of grandiose plan is what we need to really address the future of energy. The radioactive aspect of this project sounds scary. Yet, I think this article once again reminds us that if we want to curb global warming, we need to think about how to do it on a grand scale. Do we need to resort to reactor concepts or concepts that have not been perfected and may not even work? It doesn't sound like the best plan, but if we don't try some new ideas and insist on sticking with the status quo of coal and oil, we know where we are headed with climate change. It's tough for me to accept that any option that involves radiaoctive waste is a good option. Hopefully, we will think of some ways to propel wind power and solar power, such that we don't need to resort to fusion or traditional nuclear power. As hard as it may be for me to accept though, nuclear power and this fusion concept are likely here to stay.

As we were driving around upstate New York today, I was thinking about all of the truck traffic that is on the highways. We can criticize the diesel pollution all we want, but the reality is that we would have no goods in our stores and nothing in our homes if it weren't for trucks. So then, how do we as a nation do something that will minimize the tremendous use of fossil fuels by all of this truck traffic? As I was pondering this, I observed a sign posted at a rest stop, stating that it was against New York law for semi-trucks to idle in parking lots. I recalled an article I saw in some magazine a year or two ago, stating that many semis kept their diesel engines on all of the time--even when parked for the night--so that the truck drivers could run their televisions and have power for other needs during the night. There was a mention in the same article about some type of power generators that were being made available in truck stops, so that truck drivers could use power without having their engines on 24/7 and accordingly, conserve diesel fuel. Perhaps this nightime engine-running thing is what the New York law was designed to curb. In any event, I think it is really important that we acknowledge the tremendous waste of dirty diesel fuel when truckers need to keep their engines on even while they are resting at night. If we are serious about solving our "addiction to oil," then our government must supply truck drivers with an option for power, besides keeping their engines on when the truck is not being driven. Conservation has to include the millions of trucks on the road that are so vital to the economy. A simple solution, like providing an alternate power source at truck stops, is a start. This electricity likely comes from fossil fuels, as well, but at least it sounds a bit less wasteful than using a truck's fuel supply as the power source.

I'm blogging from a relative's computer in New York right now. I saw an article from the Associated Press regarding global warming that I at first could not believe. The article is entitled, "'Dirty sky' proposed as a solution to global warming." The idea, proposed by well-regarded scientists, is that a slew of pollutants may need to be intentionally emitted into the atmosphere at some point to combat global warming and help cool the planet. According to this theory, "balloons bearing heavy guns [should] be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the atmosphere." Apparently, the prevalent coal-fired power plant emission of sulfur dioxide reflects solar radiation and may be able to help cool the planet. This theory is based on studies of enormous sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes that may have previously cooled the planet for about one year. Accordingly, to keep the momentum going, "[a] massive dissemination of pollutants" would need to be released every year or two to help maintain this cooling effect. Per this article, this strategy would allow "more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels." I found this very puzzling, given that we already emit tons of sulfur dioxide every day from coal-fired power plants. Are these scientists saying that we need to emit more sulfur dioxide than we are already releasing to combat the carbon dioxide that also emanates from sources such as coal-fired power plants? How are we going to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels if one of the biggest sources of the sulfur dioxide we apparently need comes from fossil fuels? Is this theory going to give pro-coal people ammunition to say that power plant pollution is actually good for keeping the balance in the climate--e.g. they emit carbon dioxide but the sulfur dioxide somehow neutralizes this harmful warming effect? Further, are we now resorting to further polluting the air we breathe just so life as we know it does not go extinct or suffer devastating climate-changing consequences? It doesn't sound like such a great option. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, perhaps this proposal is exactly the rude awakening we need to realize that desperate measures like this one may be our only hope if we don't take big carbon dioxide cutting measures right now.

I saw an advertisement in the Economist for an Oil and Energy Analyst, with expertise on "key OPEC and non-OPEC oil producing countries." The ad also notes that the candidate should have considerable knowledge as to "the complex politics of the oil markets." After reading this ad, I started pondering how one becomes qualified to become an oil and energy analyst. It must be very difficult for someone to have a strong grasp of the largely volatile leading oil producing companies, especially when there is so much unrest currently in many of the middle eastern nations. Does college offer a course called OPEC 101 or Understanding Oil Producing Nations? Certainly, the key components to this position must be learned on the job...but which job? An economist? Some sort of business analyst? I also wondered how this position might change in the next 10 to 20 years or so. Will there be analysts for the wind power and solar power markets? Are there already such positions? It seems that to be an energy analyst, even one that focuses primarily on oil, one would still need to be familiar to some extent with alternative energy sources. For instance, won't the global oil market face considerable changes if ethanol or biodiesel really takes off?

Another thought I had was about engineering courses in universities. Are they instructing students on careers in alternative energy? I know that there is a focus at some colleges on power plant professions, as there is a shortage of professionals for coal-fired power plants. It seems to follow that there should be a future workforce being prepped to take over in the alternative energy market and to grab the ball and run with it.

I read an article in the Economist entitled, "Half life," which is obviously about nuclear power. The article focused on how dependent nuclear power's success is on governmental support and public opinion. In France, for instance, the public has come to accept nuclear power as a way of life and a new reactor is scheduled to be built. Electricite de France will be building the new reactor and is planning on covering the reactor's huge cost with its normal revenue. Yet, most utilities cannot manage this financially and the climate in many other nations is not so conducive or receptive to nuclear power. In nearby Germany, for example, the perception of nuclear power changed dramatically after the Chernobyl disaster, and a law was passed forcing the shutdown of Germany's 19 nuclear reactors by 2020. In the U.S., there are many government incentives now for nuclear power, "including insurance against regulatory risk." Yet, how do you win the American public over to nuclear power when Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as terrorist threats, are still in many Americans' minds? Personally, I share these concerns over nuclear power's safety, especially in light of terrorist threats, but I do see a few ways that nuclear power could be advocated more effectively in the U.S. than perhaps it has been in the past. The article raises the valid point that nuclear power is cheaper than natural gas and almost as cheap as coal. Putting the radioactive waste products aside (as well as the possibility of leaks from reactors), it generates power in a cleaner fashion than fossil fuels--i.e. it is "carbon free." If we are frantic about stopping global warming, some would argue that we have no excuse to snub nuclear power. Further, uranium comes mostly from stable countries like Canada and Australia, while oil comes from mostly volatile nations. Perhaps we would have less conflicts between nations if the power source was coming from more secure and friendly nations.

I still have many reservations about nuclear power. Yet, articles like this one are important for continuing the nuclear power dialogue. It makes me realize that perhaps we cannot write it off entirely--or at least, not until we have alternative energy sources that can both fill this much of the need for power and limit greenhouse gas emissions.

I saw another Chevron advertisement in the Economist that I thought was interesting. The ad reads, "There are 193 countries in the world. None of them are energy independent." It then goes on to ask, "So who's holding whom over a barrel?" The ad focuses on how even highly energy-rich nations are dependent on others for energy in some respect. For instance, I never realized that countries like Saudi Arabia import gasoline, despite its abundance of oil. According to the ad, energy independence is therefore an unrealistic goal and energy know-how and investment should cross freely over nations' borders. Chevron's position in the ad is that, "[s]ucceeding in securing energy for everyone doesn't have to come at the expense of anyone." Per the ad, world oil demand will jump up from the 2004 level of 82 million barrels per day to 115 million barrels per day by 2030.

I agree with Chevron's position to some degree in terms of the need for cooperation with respect to coping with global fossil fuel demand. If every nation acts as a renegade with an every country for itself mentality, we will have an increasingly tense situation. Countries will do whatever is necessary to meet their own populations' demands for coal, oil, etc., to the expense of the environment and the needs of other nations. As the Kyoto treaty indicates, there must be global harmony with respect to coping with fossil fuel demands without destroying our environment, as the pollution from uncontrolled fossil fuel burning has global repercussions. In other words, since we can't keep carbon dioxide emissions and other pollution within a country's borders, how can a nation act independently in this type of energy production or procurement?

At the same time, I do see a few flaws with Chevron's position. While I totally agree with the need for cooperation of nations with respect to the use of fossil fuels, I do think that countries should strive to have some self-sufficiency by developing alternative energy sources. Isn't this what Iceland and Brazil are doing currently? Iceland is using hydrogen fuel cells for its vehicles and it is my understanding that by using hydrogen for its energy needs, it could indeed become energy independent. Iceland's strategy may not be something that can be exported or implemented everywhere. After all, Iceland is a relatively small country with a wealth of natural resources like hot springs. Yet, why should Iceland have to work cooperatively with other nations if it can cure its own energy woes in this manner? Isn't it helping the world at large by taking its citizens' energy needs out of the equation? Likewise, isn't Brazil aiding the world by trying to satisfy its fuel needs with sugarcane? If oil rich nations don't need to export oil to Brazil, doesn't this reduce the strain on this supply for other nations?

In my opinion, countries need to work in harmony when fossil fuels are involved, as the environmental effects of using these supplies are felt globally. Yet, with regard to alternative energy sources, every nation may have its own particular niche, whether it be an abundance of wind, water, sun, corn, etc. One size does not fit all nations. Accordingly, if individual countries want to explore renewable sources solely to help their own citizens' energy woes, then so be it. If each country tackled alternative energy projects tailor-made for that nation in light of the renewable resources at hand, pressure on fossil fuels could be alleviated and tensions caused by nations jockeying for these finite resources could be eased.

I was thinking about the amount of energy we use to run all of our electronics and gadgets. I was also thinking about the countless toys that our kids receive for the holidays, that consume batteries to no end. What if we could convert more of these electronics, gadgets and toys to alternative energy sources? As I was pondering this, I saw an advertisement for a beautiful Citizen watch that never needs a battery. It runs on light; I wasn't sure whether this meant sunlight or any light, including artificial light inside buildings Yet, I thought it was exciting that this company designed a product that avoids the aggravation and waste of batteries. Wouldn't it be great if electronic game systems or toys that light up or talk would be battery-free and recharge with nothing more than light? We would never have to worry about checking packages for the size or type of batteries needed and never have to run back to a store if we forgot to purchase the batteries. Maybe they should sell generator-type devices specifically for all of our electronics, gadgets and toys to power them with wind or sunlight. That way, we could reserve our fossil fuel use for more of the essentials, such as heat, lighting, etc. This might be one way to conserve power a bit more and ease our fossil fuel demand. As the holidays draw near and we are using power to a maximum for all of our events, decorations, etc., we need to keep in mind that fossil fuels can't be consumed in this manner indefinitely. Perhaps now would be a good time for us to focus on ways that we can enjoy the more luxury items in life through the use of renewable energy sources.

I read an article in the Economist entitled, "Stop stop the chop chop." The article discusses ways to discourage deforestation and the resulting huge carbon emissions from decaying or burning trees. I always think of trees as a good counterbalance to carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, etc. Yet, I always need to remember that forests can be large carbon emitters as well, when people cut them down to clear areas for farming or to use lumber. Deforestation alone, results in the release of 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year--a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Forests are disappearing at a rate of 5% per decade. One option discussed is as simple as paying developing countries to not chop down forests. Another suggestion is to use carbon certificates, which to me, sounds like a form of the cap and trade program. More polluting countries pay a premium so that other countries will reduce carbon emissions. Apparently, Brazil is one country that has realized that the value of the Amazon is worth more than cheap farmland; Brazil has reduced its deforestation by 30% in eight months. Some feel that putting forests on the free market may cause them to lose value as a 'commodity,' and result in lower prices to preserve forests. Yet, it seems like market incentives are exactly what many of these countries need, as market forces are what are prompting the deforestation to begin with--i.e. people trying to make money farming or selling tropical wood.

The article had a brief reference to using market forces to stop deforestation as an indirect way of buying time for alternative energy development. I thought this was a very interesting point. The way I interpreted this reference was that if we stop or at least limit the enormous carbon dioxide emissions due to deforestation, we may slow global warming. This may in turn, give us a bit more time to curb our other carbon dioxide emissions--i.e. those from fossil fuel burning and consumption. I think we also need to keep in mind, however, that our other carbon dioxide emissions may still impact the preservation of the world's forests, as areas like the Amazon may not be able to continue handling the warming temperatures of the earth. At least if we make some progress on stopping deforestation, we may start a trend of using market forces to limit further carbon dioxide emissions through cap and trade. This will not be a total solution to a grave problem, but we need to start somewhere and we need to do it now.

I was reading an article by Craig Hanson and James R. Hendricks, Jr. on ValleyWatch.net about the benefits that a carbon tax could bring in the U.S. Such a tax would be levied on the carbon content of fossil fuels. I have always thought that improvements in environmental performance of existing energy producers and a move to more alternative energy, should be done in a way that incorporates and encourages the free market. This seemed to be the theme of the article, which notes that a moderate and gradually increasing tax on carbon emitters like natural gas facilities, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries, could generate a huge amount of revenue in this country and provide incentives to fossil-fuel dependent companies to curb carbon emissions. According to the article, which cites the Congressional Budget Office, a tax of $12.00 per metric ton of carbon which gradually increases to $17.00 per metric ton of carbon, could generate $208 billion in tax revenue over ten years. The writers note that this money could be used to finance other tax reforms. I would hope that a portion of this money would go towards alternative energy initiatives, even if it somehow flows back to the fossil-fuel burners if they would delve more into truly renewable energy projects. I would also hope that some of this revenue would be used to combat global warming by reforesting many acres of land and for research into more effective ways to capture carbon dioxide emissions that are still emanating from power plants and other sources. Although some may think the carbon tax would be difficult to administer, the article notes that it could be levied at the areas of production or delivery--i.e. oil refineries, coal-fired power plants, ports where fuels are delivered or shipped out, etc. All in all, a carbon tax to me seems like a great way to gather funds to counter the effects of carbon dioxide that is still entering the atmosphere, while discouraging more emissions. After all, if oil and natural gas companies and other utilities are forced to pay this type of tax, they may realize that to stay competitive with other energy producers and to appease their shareholders, it may be better to invest in technology to combat carbon dioxide emissions. This may be preferable to simply continuing with the status quo of emissions and paying increasingly higher taxes.

I read an article this morning from Platts.com, which discussed federal carbon dioxide emission limitations which may kick in sometime in the not too distant future. Presently, only California and eight northeastern states have signed an agreement called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. If other states are required by federal law to participate in a similar manner with respect to such restrictions, the cap and trade program may cost utilities millions of dollars. I had always looked at the cap and trade concept in a rather negative fashion, particularly with respect to mercury, given that larger utilities with the most pollution may simply buy as many allowances as possible, resulting in mercury hotspots in certain regions. However, after reading this article, I realized that perhaps I was underestimating the power that a cap and trade system can potentially have on changing utility companies' behavior. According to this article, buying credits during the INITIAL phase of such a program "could cost utilities hundreds of millions a year as thousands of megawatts of generating capacity would have to be replaced with zero emissions energy sources or covered by emission allowances." The article further notes that "the first phase of a national cap and trade program for carbon dioxide could cost more than $6 billion a year."

If these figures are accurate, I can understand some of the hesitation on the part of utilities to limit carbon dioxide emissions, even if this cost will in turn be passed on to consumers. Yet, if utilities close their eyes to what appears to be an inevitable measure to reduce nationwide carbon dioxide emissions, they may face a rude awakening when these restrictions become effective. Even the most profitable utility companies like American Electric Power seem to comprehend that greenhouse gas emissions cannot be entirely ignored. At the same time, AEP is playing both sides a bit. On one hand, it participates in the Chicago Climate Exchange whereby each member company agrees to meet decreasing emission caps via emission allowances and other measures. By 2010, AEP says it will reduce or offset its greenhouse gas emissions by 46 million metric tons, apparently by improving equipment design and planting more trees to counterbalance the emissions. On the other hand, AEP claims that there is no proven way to economically control greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. After reading these two positions in Dennis Welch's letter to me, I was left a little conflicted as to whether cap and trade is enough to get the job done, such that we have a real hope of averting climate change. Cap and trade does seem a lot more burdensome than I previously thought; apparently, these allowances don't come cheap and if enough can't be obtained, real changes will have to be made in a power plant to meet any emission restrictions (if and when they are imposed by the federal government). Nevertheless, I can't help but think that there will be enormous loopholes for utilities, especially the biggest and most powerful, which seem to have a lot of influence over our federal government. After all, AEP's position that nothing can really be done to stop carbon dioxide emissions in a cost-effective manner, doesn't lead me to believe that company officials are breaking a sweat over impending federal carbon dioxide emission restrictions.

One thing is clear to me. If California and the eight other brave states are successful in achieving their carbon dioxide limitations, their utilities will be way ahead of the game than those that drag their feet, in the event that the federal government limits carbon dioxide emissions. I also believe that these states' utilities will prove to AEP and other large utilities that carbon dioxide limitations can be attained without these companies suffering financial ruin. Hopefully, the utilities' hold over the federal government won't stonewall genuine progress being made in the way of carbon dioxide reductions. Given that the planet's future is potentially at stake, this is one time where true headway needs to be made in the coming years without excuses or delays.

I saw an advertisement from American Electric Power (AEP) in Forbes. It was contained in a special advertising section for utility companies, where they touted their concern for the environment. The ad notes that AEP is one of the nation's largest utilities, which owns "more than 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S." The ad also notes that AEP "owns the nation's largest electricity transmission system...." AEP describes itself as a leader in the industry given its development of "the world's largest coal-fired generating units." The ad moreover claims that AEP will continue to be a leader by building the "first large-scale [IGCC] clean coal plants in the U.S."

As someone who has written to AEP and actually received a response from Dennis Welch, who heads its environmental division, I am somewhat cynical of any claims that AEP is an innovator in environmentally-friendly energy production. I was actually glad that a main focus of the ad was on what AEP truly is: a large scale coal-burning company--and it has the pollution problems to boot. When I received a letter from Mr. Welch, the general theme seemed to be that because AEP has such large power plants and generates a tremendous amount of power, there is only so much it can do to improve its environmental performance. Mr. Welch did say that AEP has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1998-2001 levels. AEP also participates in reforestation efforts to help offset carbon dioxide emissions. Aside from this, Mr. Welch mentioned the IGCC investments and general information about how AEP will be affected by more stringent federal air pollution regulations with respect to sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

All of the above sounded okay on the surface, but when I look at the plume of smoke emanating from AEP's Rockport, Indiana power plant--only 30 miles or so from where I live--I need something more concrete to deal with. Accordingly, I asked specifically about this plant in my letter to AEP and Mr. Welch didn't exactly sidestep it. Yet, I was not exactly blown away by the progress reached at this plant. In his letter, Mr. Welch stated that the Rockport plant is one of AEP's largest and that this size alone meant more air emissions. In terms of sulfur dioxide, Mr. Welch stated that Rockport's emissions are equal to or below those of new sources WHEN the plant was first built about 25 years ago. Meanwhile, with respect to nitrogen oxide emissions, Rockport's emissions have been reduced by 38% since 1995. With regard to mercury, Mr. Welch stated that there are no proven technologies to effectively reduce these emissions from the type of low sulfur coal used at Rockport.

While I appreciated Mr. Welch writing a three-page letter to me, I was rather discouraged that the "innovation" as he describes it at Rockport, was as minimal as it appears to be. I don't see how having the same sulfur dioxide emissions that were the norm in the 1980s is an acceptable benchmark today. In addition, lowering nitrogen oxide emissions by close to 40% sounds pretty respectable until one considers the enormous emissions that are still coming out of that plant. Further, with all of the talk in different states about limiting mercury emissions from power plants by 90%, I don't see how AEP is claiming that this can't be achieved at Rockport. I acknowledge that this would be no easy feat at a plant as big as Rockport (and would be costly), but to say it can't be done currently sounds a bit disingenous to me. If other states are going to require their plants to reduce levels of mercury in a drastic fashion, a highly lucrative company like AEP can make it happen, as well.

Given that the holidays are approaching and Americans will be traveling a lot in the next month, I started thinking about how travel involves the consumption of fossil fuels. I also started thinking about whether it is better to drive or fly in terms on conserving energy. I read somewhere recently that air travel is one of the worst culprits of global warming given the way a jet burns fossil fuels. Yet, is it better for 300 people to fly somewhere on a plane together than for 300 people to drive separately to the same destination? Does the answer depend on whether those people each drive a Prius or a Hummer? Does it depend on what type pf plane is being flown? I saw Modern Marvels a few days ago, which mentioned one high-tech jet's fuel consumption in terms of feet to the gallon, not miles. Meanwhile, an article in the Evansville Courier & Press this morning discussed an ultra light jet, weighing under 10,000 pounds. Does this mean it's fuel efficient? Even if it is, it only seats seven people, so perhaps we're then at the question of whether it makes more sense for 300 people to fly on one large jet than for 300 people to fly on more than 40 ultra light planes.

It is concerning that we will not be able to sustain our habit of air travel, especially since there are business travelers who fly weekly. What will we do when our oil supplies are not so easy to come by, especially if oil-rich areas continue to be tumultuous nations? This brings us back to Richard Branson's commitment to allocating his transportation business' profits to alternative energy. It really seems like this bold gesture is exactly what we need to give hope to the future of transportation. If we don't want to be driving hydrogen fuel-cell cars all over the country due to global warming and instead want to reserve our automobile travel for shorter distances, then we had better figure out a better way to travel by air. In addition, if we want to continue to be able to drive with the whole family across the country whenever we want, we had better figure out a way to do that without exacerbating global warming. If we can conquer both modes of transportation with more alternative fuel technology, we can end this debate (in my mind, at least) of which is the lesser of the two evils in terms of consuming fossil fuels for travel.

Jeannette Lee wrote an article for the Associated Press entitled, "Young tidal energy companies stake claims on the coast." The story discusses how a number of companies are seeking ways to utilize ocean tides to produce energy. Tidal power apparently works a lot like wind power, in that turbines are used to generate power. However, tidal power turbines are described as "little wind turbines on steroids." The article goes on to say that "[w]ater's greater density means fewer and smaller turbines are needed to produce the same amount of electricity as wind turbines." Testing is in the works, but while permits for studying tidal sites are increasing, there has not yet been any applications for tidal development licenses.

According to the article, the project that has progressed the most is in New York City. Verdant Power is planning to "install two underwater turbines this month as part of a small pilot project" for power to be used in a supermarket and parking garage. This company may eventually be able to create enough tidal energy to power 8,000 homes. Concerns are that fish will be killed in the turbines and that it will be difficult to turn a profit with this form of energy. Apparently, tidal energy does best when positioned near a power grid and lots of fast moving water, while not being in the way of boats.

I had never read about tidal energy, although I guess it's really another form of hydroelectric power. Yet, instead of involving a dam or water wheel, it involves turbines that are used deep in the water. One question I had was how deep these turbines can be placed in a body of water--e.g, can they be positioned at the bottom of a deep ocean? If so, how are they secured to the floor of the body of water? Obviously, as with wind power and the bird/bat casualties, design changes may need to be made to underwater turbines to minimize the damage to marine life. If this tidal energy idea catches on, those improvements will likely follow. Perhaps this form of energy will never be the lead player in the alternative energy market, but we should welcome this new concept to the mix. In addition, for places like Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, etc., that are bordered by a lot of fast-moving water, tidal energy could materialize into a much bigger energy source than it might in New York City.

A strange thought came to my mind as I read this article mentioning "the rising and ebbing sea." Could global warming be leading to more tidal energy by raising ocean levels? If the water temperatures increase, will that work for or against tidal energy? Climate change is definitely a bad thing, but perhaps our climate is giving us a cue or a warning sign that we should try to use our water itself for energy, instead of continuing to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are today. Before the oceans consume much of our coastline due to global warming, perhaps we should see the tides as our friend rather than foe and work with it rather than against it.

I decided to research generators for homes that could alleviate some of our reliance on the power grid, especially if there is extreme weather that damages power lines, towers, etc. It turns out that this idea is not very novel, especially when you can buy generators powered by alternative energy from Target.com. I was surprised that Target sells a few different wind-powered generators for about $800.00. These generators are 400 watt generators. One of them has its own steel tower so that the generator can be mounted 30 feet high. Another one is described as being maintenance-free, as it is comprised of only two moving parts. It also has carbon fiber composite blades to ensure low wind noise. I was actually tempted to buy one of these generators after reading about them, since it really sounds like a good way to try out wind power's effectiveness in whatever area someone lives in, before seeking it on a grander scale. I have heard from some that southern Indiana, for example, is suitable for large-scale wind power set-ups, while others say that wind power would not be effective here. One of these generators might be a good start to test the use of wind power here.

In terms of solar-powered generators, what I found mostly were battery charging kits that are suitable for boats or a small cabin. Yet, as with the wind power generators, I was surprised that you can simply go to a popular source (this one being Amazon.com) to find these items.

Wind power and solar power are within reach for many people given the retailers that sell these items, which is encouraging for the future of alternative energy in general. If people see that they can purchase these items from stores they trust and are comfortable with, they might be that much more inclined to give them a try. If they like what they see, they may then be more apt to embrace wind power or solar power on an even grander scale. I think there is still a misconception among many people that only environmentalists or hippie-types actually use wind or solar power. Yet, if these same people try out alternative energy in a way that's simple and not threatening, they may get over this hurdle. They may also save some money on their energy bills if they can create their own power rather than being completely dependent on utilities and the power grid.

Today marks the first anniversary of the tornado that devasted portions of southern Indiana and Kentucky. As I was reading about the tornado anniversary in the newspaper today, I saw a letter to the editor from Niel Ellerbrook, CEO of Vectren, a large utility. In his letter, Mr. Ellerbrook discussed the extraordinary effort exhibited by his company's employees in restoring power to the area, given the huge damage to power lines and other infrastructure. His letter made me reflect on how important it is for us to be able to rely on electricity being available when we want it. Unlike the U.S., many less affluent nations only can count on having electricity during certain hours of the day. I recall Diane Sawyer stating on Good Morning America recently, that much of North Korea is dark at night, given the rationing of electrical power. We are fortunate that utility companies work hard to restore power no matter what the odds, so that we can try to return to normal life even in terrible circumstances. Yet, such complete reliance seems dangerous.

I believe that we should think about nature's ability to interfere with our energy supplies and the dangers of relying too much on any one source. If we diversify our energy sources to include more alternative energy, we may be able to ease the huge blow caused when conventional power sources--like electrical power delivered via power lines--goes down, even temporarily. For instance, if we could have generators that are solar powered and powered by some other form of alternative energy, perhaps we could have energy after a storm that could alleviate the pressure on conventional power sources. There should be some way that people can help themselves in situations where electricity is disrupted. Of course, there are battery-powered generators available now, but I believe that this technology can be improved upon such that they can use alternative energy sources. I am not certain whether this has been explored already, but I plan to research it a bit more.

If Americans want continual, reliable access to power, we need to take matters in our own hands to some extent. We need to look for ways to supply our own power in emergency situations rather than simply hoping that the utilities will immediately restore it to us.

Lately, I've been thinking that landfill gas (e.g. methane) held the promise to power many homes and aid the environment at the same time. After all, it makes perfect sense that using this landfill gas for energy and preventing this potent greenhouse gas from rising into the atmosphere had to be a win-win situation. So, it would figure that I've been reading a few articles recently that call into doubt the notion that using landfills for energy is the way to go.

On the positive side, there are still many publications that note the benefits of using methane from landfills for energy. For one, methane has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide according to one article, which means using it for energy could definitely help combat global warming. In addition, there is evidence that converting methane into energy destroys most of its hazardous air pollutants (via combustion) and accordingly, using it can be of great benefit to public health. Further, if homes or companies can use methane for energy, they don't need to obtain energy from coal-fired power plants, eliminating the need for even more pollution. One major company that uses a landfill for energy is S.C. Johnson & Company, in Racine, Wisconsin. The company is particularly proud, as I think it should be, for using this energy source rather than coal-fired power plants, given that two new ones opened recently in Wisconsin.

Of course, there always seems to be a downside. The main concern is that landfill gas can contain minute quantities of dioxins. Dioxins can be very harmful even in very small amounts. I'm not clear on why the combustion process would eliminate most of the hazardous air pollutants but not the dioxins, when energy is generated from landfills. However, given the small quantities of dioxins that companies need to disclose in TRI reports, we need to be concerned about the tiny amounts that might emanate from the methane-making process. Another article I read recently mentioned that landfill gas contains more mercury than coal-fired power plants, yet I am still unclear on whether this can be captured before energy is produced. Given the health hazards of mercury, this is definitely a concern.

Some of the articles I have read focus on the subsidies for methane production as being a negative, because they discourage recycling. I guess the idea is that if landfills make money from converting garbage into energy--regardless of what the garbage contains--there will not be as much pressure on the landfills to extract items that can be recycled. Yet, when I saw the program on the Puente Hills landfill in southern California, the landfill spent considerable time taking out items that could be recycled. In addition, I think recycling is very poorly promoted and under-emphasized in most of the nation. Perhaps in certain states where people can still collect a refund for a bottle or can, recycling is big. However, in large cities and small towns across the country, people still toss many items that can be recycled into the trash without a second thought. In my mind, every restaurant, park, sidewalk, rest area, store, etc., should have recycling bins next to the trash can. Further, people should be required to recycle at home and should have to pay a premium to dispose of more than a certain number of trash bags per week. I don't see this recycling issue so much the responsibility of the waste handling companies, as I do the public in its day-to-day disposal of waste.

There is much more to learn with regard to the landfill gas issue apparently, before we can endorse it without any caveats. Nonetheless, it also seems premature to condemn this potential energy source at this time.

I saw yet another advertisement from an oil company, Chevron, that doesn't even focus entirely on oil. It seemed like yet another attempt from an oil company to show how it is jumping on the alternative energy wave. Yet, as I lost some of my skepticism with the Shell ad I read the other day, I thought that this ad will at least grab attention and may genuinely boost the public's awareness that fossil fuels cannot be the sole energy provider in the future. The ad is several pages long, with the first page being all royal blue, except for two sentences: "World energy demand could more than double in the next 50 years. So where would we get the energy everyone needs?" The ad then discusses biodiesel, with Chevron "investing millions to help build one of the first large-scale biodiesel plants in the world." The ad also discusses geothermal reservoirs, which could meet the electricity needs of almost 10% of the planet. The difficulty is that "only one in five exploratory wells [yields] viable energy that can be tapped." Further, the ad discusses hydrogen, which (while currently expensive) could "cut the U.S. demand for oil over the next 40 years." All of these energy sources hold promise and this ad should help all who advocate alternative energy to put the naysayers at bay. After all, the oil companies even admit the potential of these sources.

On the flip side, the ad still talked about accessing heavy hydrocarbons from oil sands in Canada. Chevron has spent almost $2 billion on this, which sounds like a lot more than its alternative energy investing. One other fossil fuel source discussed is diesel produced from natural gas, which is supposedly "ultra-clean." Chevron is investing in a 34,000 barrel per day gas to liquids facility that will eventually produce this new diesel fuel. I still feel that the balance is definitely tipped in favor of using fossil fuels as much as possible, even if they are incredibly difficult to access, like the hydrocarbon extraction sounds. I also didn't care for the way these two non-alternative energy concepts were sandwiched between the truly alternative energy concepts--i.e. those that are actually renewable. Ads like this are why many people think "clean coal," for instance, is alternative energy. These concepts may be alternative to traditional fossil fuel use, but they are still produced with fossil fuels. If companies like Chevron want to show how we need a mix of energy sources, then that's fine. However, I think they should differentiate between renewable resources and those that are not.

I was reading the latest issue of Fortune, which contains a special section about architecture. There was an interesting article called, "The New City Beautiful," which discusses buildings being used to help the environment. One key example is proposed for China , which will lose 25% of its farmland in the next 15 years due to its rapid industrialization. The plan is to create a 22 square mile community that utilizes rooftops for farmland. These rooftop gardens and farms will also help clean China's air and water. One way is for the plants on the rooftops to reduce some of the carbon dioxide in the air.

The article also discusses plans for more buildings that have self-shading glass, which I assume would reduce air conditioning costs. Other building materials discussed are carpets and fabrics that clean the air and photovoltaic coatings that can be applied to steel, presumably to make the building itself a recipient of solar power.

I thought the article was interesting because it shows how we can move ahead with industrialization without completely destroying the environment, if we use some ingenuity and respect for the environment. The idea of putting our farms on our roofs sounds rather sad in a way, but if it is a way to cope with the inevitable destruction of farmland, then I guess it's something of a compromise. At least we may be able to minimize the negative environmental impact of a lot of architecture if we use the buildings to offset the environmental damage due to construction and as generators of alternative energy.

I'm always skeptical of oil company advertisements that try to portray its business as something other than an oil company. I've noticed that BP finally stopped saying "Beyond Petroleum." I guess we all knew that this just wasn't the case. So when I saw a Shell ad picturing a wind farm, I started rolling my eyes a bit again. Yet, upon reading the ad and looking at the information on Shell's website, I changed my attitude a bit. If a big oil company can promote wind power, then maybe other utilities will start jumping on this bandwagon. I'm well aware that these ads are basically PR, to distract the public from concerns about oil supplies, profits, oil spills, etc. Yet, the ad does show a lot of promise for wind power, which you can't help but be excited about. In the ad, the Emick family of Colorado is profiled. They were apparently on the verge of losing their cattle farm when they saw the opportunity to lease some of their land for wind power. There are now 98 wind turbines on their property. The turbines are owned by Colorado Green Wind Farm and operated by Shell and PPM Energy. The Emick family receives a return for the percentage of energy derived from the wind turbines, such that they can continue farming their land.

The project was an immediate boost for this area of Colorado, as 400 workers were needed to complete the project. The permanent workforce for the project has help increase the local tax base by 29%, which has led to new schools and better medical facilities in the region.

Regardless of Shell's motivations for being involved in this project, it is great to see farmers benefitting from wind power and demonstrating how they can lease their land in this manner to ensure more financial security for their farms. Hopefully, Shell will show continued commitment to these types of projects and other oil companies will diversify their energy production in this manner, as well.

I was reading an article in the Economist, entitled, "A rubbish business model." Rather than simply using the methane from landfills, the concept discussed was to convert the waste itself into fuel. The article describes a company called Startech Environmental that uses "plasma conversion, superheating rubbish to break down its molecular bonds and create a 'synthesis gas' which is then converted into ethanol or biodiesel." There are several ways to convert waste into fuel, such as gasifying trash by heating it and converting it into synthesis fuel, which is then placed into "the Fischer-Tropsch" process. The Nazis actually used this technique to convert coal into fuel during World War II. Another way of using this process is to break down cellulose and produce ethanol from the decomposing organic plant residue. The difficulty, according to the article, is that household garbage isn't a neat compost of organic material but a mixture of God knows what. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) claims that there really is no effective way to convert household waste for a profit into ethanol or another fuel. The NRDC further notes that because many people do not recycle items that could be recycled, turning garbage into fuel may not be much of a gain for the environment. In my opinion, however, it would be better to make energy from otherwise wasted materials, even if the pros of recycling outweigh the benefits of this process.

Startech also feels there are merits to the garbage to fuel process, as there are almost no emissions with its fuel-making operation and only a fraction of the resulting energy is consumed by the conversion process. Currently, however, Startech's plan is still somewhat in the theoretical stage, as there are no backers right now to convert 10 tons of waste per day into fuel. Yet, I would not give up hope on Startech yet, as one brave backer could spawn a craze of many. The article further notes that Startech is far ahead of other companies with similar concepts, because Startech at least has a demonstration plant. Other companies, like Masada Resource Group and Green Power, have no demonstration plants, despite grandiose plans to convert garbage into fuel. In fact, Green Power claims it can even make oil from waste with 90% efficiency. Yet, when its CEO was convicted of fraud in Austria, many discounted the truth of these statistics.

Changing World Technologies is a company that does run a commercial plant, converting materials like turkey slaughterhouse waste and pig fats into fuel. This material could be refined into biodiesel. The downside is that it costs the company $80 a barrel to make the fuel.

Just like with other methods to produce ethanol and biodiesel, the trash to fuel concept has some current downsides, namely not being all the efficient right now. Yet, as with other technology, demand will lead to improvements and more efficient output. If we could someday run our cars on our household garbage, so long as the emissions were controlled, we would be eliminating some of our waste disposal problems and increasing our fuel availability. As long as humans are on the planet, garbage will always be a renewable resource.