A few examples of what the people would like to see cut to help balance the budget!

Ok so I got a hold of some survey results from the Wall Street Journal/NBC. Among the many questions there were some questions about what the survey takers would like to see cut from the budget in efforts to balance things out. Here are what the high points of the results are!

The question was whether or not the taker thinks its acceptable to cut funding for the program in question. Originally this was split into Totally Acceptable, Mostly Acceptable, Mostly Unacceptable, Totally Unacceptable, and Not Sure.

Subsidies to build new Nuclear Power Plants: 57% Acceptable, 40% Unacceptable, 3% Not Sure
Federal assistance to state governments: 52% Acceptable, 45% Unacceptable, 3% Not Sure
The EPA: 51% Acceptable, 46% Unacceptable, 3% Not Sure
Transportation and Infrastructure projects: 51% Acceptable, 46% Unacceptable, 3% Not Sure
Medicaid: 32% Acceptable, 67% Unacceptable, 1% Not Sure
Medicare: 23% Acceptable, 76% Unacceptable, 1% Not Sure
K through 12 Education: 22% Acceptable, 77% Unacceptable, 1% Not Sure
Social Security: 22% Acceptable, 77% Unacceptable, 1% Not Sure

Here are some other things the survey takers were asked about:

Placing a surtax on federal income taxes for people earning over a million dollars a year: 81% Acceptable, 17% Unacceptable, 2% Not Sure
Eliminating Earmark spending: 78% Acceptable, 17% Unacceptable, 5% Not Sure
Eliminating funding for weapon systems the Department of Defense says are not necessary: 76% Acceptable, 22% Unacceptable, 2% Not Sure
Eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries: 74% Acceptable, 22% Unacceptable, 4% Not Sure
Ending Bush tax cuts for families earning over $250 million a year: 68% Acceptable, 29% Unacceptable, 3% Not Sure


That is just a smattering of the information from pages 15 and 16 of the survey, which covers far more than just the budget. I suggest you breeze through it, there are some great numbers. For the most part it would seem as if the people would like to see cuts in spending and in tax breaks. Lets hope that someone can listen and someone can figure out how to do it without killing the middle and lower classes.

What should we do with these tax breaks for Big Oil?

A lot of talk has been flying around lately about the breaks that Big Oil gets on their taxes from the Federal Government. To ring in on the topic I found this awesome chart from 350.org.

Now as you follow the flow you will see a lot of rhetoric, and to cut through some of that really quick let me make this clear. The oil companies are not the only companies out there that receive major breaks and benefit from incredible holes in the tax code. None of these practices are appropriate on ethical and business levels. All across the board we should be looking at ways to eliminate tax breaks for companies earning huge profits like they are or for those who evade paying their taxes by moving parts of their operations out of the country.

Also I’m not going to talk about domestic offshore drilling, you can probably guess how I feel about that and I will tell you that even trying to get domestic offshore going will make no real impact.

So what are we allowing the oil companies to get away with? Well we give the oil industry a 41 billion dollar tax break annually. This tax break could be equal to $41,000,000,000 that we can spend on domestic needs. The removal of these breaks would not cost the consumer much more than they already spend at the pump. The jumps in price would likely look normal to the average consumer. Now that is because the profit is not made on an individual gallon of gas, a few pennies per gallon, but in the quantity that the oil companies sell. Most of the costs associated with the price of fuel at the pump are state and federal taxes, which is why I can go to Vermont and buy gas for about 20 cents less than across the border in New York. It is also why I can buy gas for less in certain counties of New York compared to others.

How much are these companies making in profits? Record breaking profits, in the tens of billions of dollars, Exxon made $52.9 billion last year in profit. All while the rest of the economy is in decline. Now I’m not saying that we should punish these companies for doing better while the rest of us suffer, I’m simply saying that they should pay their taxes like you or I. And there are plenty of people who support this idea. Our President, Barak Obama, Former Shell CEO John Hofmeister, House Speaker John Boehner [R], and the U.S. Treasury all support the removal of these subsidies.

So this sounds like a good call, remove the subsidies and use the money for good, right? Certainly we could use an extra $41 billion, we have some debt collectors from across the Pacific that might want to get paid back, there are huge budget deficits across the nation, and could use some new roads, bridges, and/or renewable power sources. One specific we can take from the chart is that we could DOUBLE the amount of energy generated in the US by renewable wind energy. Now I’m not super sold on industrial scale wind power, but I’d rather see that than more record breaking oil company profits. How about you?

So what else should we look at? Well for starters maybe we can legitimize these corporate tax breaks with something that would benefit everyone, that’s diplomatic isn’t it? Perhaps we could allow tax breaks to companies is they create jobs in the U.S. for U.S. citizens? Or maybe they get a break in taxes if they spend a high percentage of their profits to fund domestic renewable energy? Ideas like these would be mutually beneficial to the companies and to American citizens. Combine these ideas with a new tax code, updated for the 21^st century and its businesses, and maybe we can think our way out of this very unpopular and controversial point of contention.

Google continues to be awesome and invest $168 Million into solar

I caught this today on Treehugger

Google has continued its support for green energy and technologies by funding a solar thermal power plant in the middle of the Mojave Desert in California. Its $168 million dollar investment will go to fun the 392MW Ivanpah Solar Plant. Construction on Ivanpah started last fall and has a expected completion date in the year 2013. Google's reason for investing so heavily into this specific plant is to help this solar tech reach its maturity and return more on the investment.

Solar Thermal Plants, like Ivanpah, use hundreds or thousands of mirrors called heliostats to focus the suns light on one singular point. We have all seen what happens when you focus the suns light on a leaf using a magnifying glass, the leaf heats up and burns. These heliostat mirrors do something similar, minus the fire, by focusing the suns light onto a huge tower. At the top of this tower is the focus point, where water is heated up into steam. And that steam is HOT, to the tune of 1000*F!! That steam is then used to drive a turbine generator and produce electricity, LOTS of it! Like I mentioned, Ivanpah is a 392MW plant, which over its 25 year lifetime will offset the of about 90,000 cars. Ivanpah's heliostat mirror array consists of 346,000 mirrors and a 450 foot tall tower.

Rock on Google for investing so much money into clean energy! Their grand total, according to Treehugger, is now $250 Million!

Minimizing material possessions as part of moving into a new home.

Recently I have been trying to find myself a new place to live. Between some personal changes that have taken place over the last few months and the possibility of earning/saving more money by living closer to work, I decided it would be a good idea. Last night I was making a list of things that I wanted to move to my new apartment. While looking at that list I realized I was making a list of categories of things and not particular things to move. Seeing my possessions split into about thirty different categories I thought it would be a good time to go through and see what I actually need to have and what is not necessary.

We all have clutter in our lives, but what clutter is useless clutter? What things can we put neatly away for the handful of days we actually need those things in the course of the year? There is so much in our lives that collects dust but it can be hard to come to terms with getting rid of it. So how do we get rid of it? I can't tell you how to shed the things that you don't need or use but want, but I can tell you how I'm going to do it!

First thing is first, determining those things that need to go. It can be hard to determine what is clutter and what is needed. Is my dictionary more or less needed or useful than my backpacking tent? Well really my dictionary might be more handy than my backpacking tent on a day to day basis, but I can't camp to comfortably if I don't have a tent! Which one can be consolidated? That dictionary can easily be substituted for the dictionary on my phone, my Kindle, or the internet, the only qualm I have with that is the loss of a hard copy of the dictionary. I can live without it. Consolidation, dual or multi purposing of items, and necessity of an item are keys to a items importance in your life and thus if you really need to keep it.

Another strategy I use for more mundane things like books, movies, and household item is whether or not I can remember the last time I used it. If I haven't used something in over half a year then I'm pretty sure I don't NEED to have it around. It might be a handy thing to have for that one situation, but is it really necessary to keep a large bulky item for something that might come once every two years? For me no, I can live without it, or borrow it from a friend, or rent it if I REALLY need it.

Now that we have decided on the things we can discard, what should we do with our newly shed articles? Well there are many options for you, some can make you a little money, some wont, and mostly they will be helping out local charities. My first option, for those of you concerned with making a buck on your old stuff, is selling your things online. I suggest venues like Amazon.com or Craigslist for most things. Amazon.com is particularly useful for books, CD's, games and movies, there are usually standard ads/listings you can add your item to. Craigslist for everything else, because you can name your own price and are selling locally so you don't have to worry about shipping. If all else fails DONATE TO CHARITY! The Salvation Army, Goodwill, Church Charities and the like, are always accepting things that people don't want. This is a great option for your karma to benefit from as you will be helping the poor and some really awesome organizations.

So I challenge you, my friends and readers, to start looking around your space. Do you see those things you might not need, the things you can live without? See if you can simplify a little. The simpler you live the less you have to worry about!

Cost of Commuting

With the cost of a barrel of oil marching upward and the cost of gas following closely, the cost of the daily commute is going up too. I recently realized this painful reality when I cashed my last paycheck and looked at my checking accounts ledger online. Counting up the trips to the gas pump, which I religiously charge to my debit card, I realized I had spent between $300 and $550 per month on gas!

These totals really surprised me and, honestly, made me very embarrassed of my driving habits. Granted I am a substitute teacher and fencing coach, I have to travel a great deal from my home in rural Albany County to the schools I substitute for and the fencing gym in Schenectady. I also have had to make regular trips out to Boston to visit a friend there. So my necessary travel expenses are going to be high, but are they really worth it?

Between the primary two schools that I substitute for, I average about two weeks of work per month, so ten days total. This works out to a net income averaging around $900. For every day I sub I have to figure the cost of the commute, round trip to the school and back. The closest of the two schools is a 62 mile round trip, the other is 69 miles round trip. To figure out the cost I had to take into account the cost of gas, how many miles per gallon I get and the average cost of maintenance per mile. Gas, today, costs $3.65/g, my car averages 21mpg, and, from what I researched online, the maintenance cost per mile is 5.3 cents. All in all my commute averages out to cost about 16% of my net income.

Is my daily commute worth it, yes. This is especially true when I take into account that I haven't been able to locate and secure a full time position, or just find a full time job anywhere near me.

This is some interesting insight on what it really costs to go to work. I don't like it at all, the fact that 16% of what I earn a month, after taxes (which are ridiculous on their own level), goes into my car makes me sick. To think of the thousands of dollars I spend a year supporting our dependence on foreign oil and an industry that causes disparity on a global scale and contributes enormously to climate change. But the sad fact is that this necessary evil is likely to stay the same in my life for the foreseeable future. But I have plans to relocate within the next year or two in order to cut my commute 50-90% and to increase my monthly income. We shall see how these next couple of years pan out.

Not surprisingly the FAO warns about rising food prices for the 8th month in a row!

Amid concerns of political turmoil and rising oil prices, I was not at all surprised this morning to hear that the FAO's report on February's food prices is not any better than January's. For what is not the 8th month in a row the global food price index has risen. The index of food prices rose 2.2% in February, making it the third month in a row of never before seen record highs. The January index shattered the previous record from 2008, and from December 2010. 

With prices this high there is much speculation and concern over the possibility of riots and turmoil like that seen during the highs of 2008. In 2008 many developing countries around the world faced food riots and bans on exports from the developing world. This plus the rising concern over the price of oil, could create a perfect storm of dangerous political conditions. As if that wasn't enough, the growing season is right around the corner. Should global agriculture be faced with problems similar to the 2010 season, we could be in for a even rougher 2012. Last July started the spike in prices, in response to problems like fires in Russia, floods in Pakistan, and droughts across Canada and Australia. Pessimists like me think that problems like droughts and floods will only get worse.

In the face of all this it is good to see the Director of the FAO, David Hallam, being realistic. In the FAO report he states; "Unexpected oil price spikes could further exacerbate an already precarious situation in food markets... This adds even more uncertainty concerning the price outlook just as plantings for crops in some of the major growing regions are about to start." Indeed we are in a very unique environment. In the United States the market for corn has had a significant dent put in it by biofuels. Problems with corn and other crops like wheat and soybeans, are further exacerbated by the rising cost of oil, which is now hovering above the $100/barrel mark. The index does follow more than crops; meat, oils, and dairy are also on the list. All of the above are seeing marked percentage gains. 

The lesson to be learned here is to be watchful of food prices in the coming months. Take advantage of sales, and coupons. Stock up on nonperishables when you can. Where practical, plant a garden, fresh fruits and vegetables will be the most expensive part of your grocery bill but the easiest part to grow yourself. Buy organic, buy local, that supports the kind of change we need in agriculture while assuring you are eating the freshest and healthiest food you can. Good luck....

Oil is dancing with $100/barrel again and, surprise surprise, Americans are doing the exact opposite of what they should.

With the political turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East getting more dangerous every day, the price of oil is going up. Libya alone is responsible for 2% of the worlds oil supply, and has some of the largest proven reserves out there. Plus unrest across the along Northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula is not going to make things any easier either. So now a barrel of oil is hovering just below $100, and some are even well above that mark.

What does this mean for America? The short answer is nothing good.

We were just beginning to see some serious signs of recover, despite rising food and energy costs this winter. However, now with oil once again daring to set record highs with no sign of stopping, we are going to be plunged back into a downturn. What do we do about this? We whine to our leaders and expect miracles from the administration and from the Saudi's...

This past weekend at the National Governors Association meeting, many spoke out against the rise in price. The threat was made clear and worries about the engine of recovery stalling were aired, but no solutions offered. The next day members of congress sprang into action pleading for Obama to open up our reserves and seek aid from the Saudi's, a really responsible move..

To what end are these actions going to save the country? Depleting our strategic and domestic reserves is only going to serve to stave the problem off a few months. Leaving us open to a economic and functional crash once it is all gone. Going to the Saudi's, our favorite oil barons, will add billions to the national debt. Neither option are going to provide long term results. We need some creative, forward thinking, and responsible plans to save the nation from the worst possible outcomes of these events.

So what should we do? Why not lower the price of public transportation? Reducing the fairs on trains and buses, even temporarily, will encourage people in cities and suburbs across the nation to park the car and take public transit. Even if these public operations end up running at cost, there is nothing wrong with operating thusly when faced with the likelihood of there not existing at all. Radio and television ads, on local stations, could advertise routes, times, and fairs to help spread the word. State and Federal transportation agencies could lower the speed limits by 5-10mph, in hopes that the difference in fuel consumption would lead to savings. Our largest glut of oil, shipping and industry, could be required to make cut backs or seek alternate methods of transportation. Already we have seen technology that could make savings in ocean going shipping, we could also stand to ship more by rail.

In the end, it is a little too late to do a lot. The time it takes for the government and for companies to make changes would make any major changes time and cost prohibitive. As Americans and as people who are facing some of the greatest challenges ever faced, we cannot afford to be complacent. We need to begin to take this seriously, start making savings where we can. Carpool, stay home, plan your week to avoid excess driving, telecommute if you can, do whatever it takes. Above all else be prepared.

Breathing new life into the sails of shipping, literally!

The Minnesota based agricultural and commodities giant Cargill is looking to save some money on its shipping operations by installing kites on the bows of ships to help produce propulsion. This new take on wind powered shipping is pioneered by a German company called SkySails. This impressive new technology is aimed at reducing fuel consumption and providing greener shipping for years to come. These kites, measuring in at a massive 320 square meters, will reduce fuel consumption by upwards of 35%, resulting in a savings on about ten tons of fuel a day. Very impressive!

SkySails technology has yet to be deployed on large shipping vessels, but the proposed system should be hitting the high seas by 2012. These kites will be flown from the bow of the ships at heights of 100-400+ meters and are controlled by computers, in order to maximize output. The UN predicts that if technology like this was adopted on a large scale by global shipping, that there could be a 100 million tons of CO2 emissions saved annually! Plus that will equal money in the bank for shippers since they won't be, literally, pouring as much money into their massive fuel tanks.

Wind powered ships are obviously no new thing, but this latest spin on the age old classic has a lot of people excited. Some smaller iterations of this idea have been used to pull smaller boats like kayaks and row boats for years. You can even pick up a kite for use in your kayak or canoe online for next to nothing!! I have even seen this idea applied to mountain boarding and skiing, using traction kites for propulsion. SkySails, itself, has been selling kites for yachts and other pleasure boats for years. To see Cargill and SkySails ambitious plans really does breath new hope and life into the future of global shipping! To find out more check out the Treehugger article here, and talk about carbon neutral shipping here.

Warren Buffett on American Rail

In his recent yearly address, billionaire and philanthropist Warren Buffett had nothing but praise for the US and the direction things are heading. One especially positive note is Buffett's thoughts on American rail, seen here in the New York Times, are as follows.


“Railroads have major cost and environmental advantages over trucking, their main competitor,” said Mr. Buffett. “Our country gains because of reduced greenhouse emissions and a much smaller need for imported oil. When traffic travels by rail, society benefits."


Of course this follows Buffett's 26 billion dollar purchase of Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad. Either way you look at it, this is positive press for American rail. To see an investor like Buffett "all aboard" with the idea, and calling it his highlight of 2010, is even better!

Monsanto evades liability for genetically modified crops by shifting blame to farmers.

Everybody's least favorite industrial-agriculture giant is at it again! Monsanto, with protection of State and Federal agencies, are forcing farmers to sign an agreement that transfers all liability to the farmer. Monsanto's "Technology/Stewardship Agreement", includes this little section, absolving Monsanto of sin.

"GROWER’S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, 
SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES." 

And should the contract be terminated; "If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to such a notice, Grower’s responsibilities and the other terms herein shall survive (such as but not limited to Grower’s obligation to use Seed for a single commercial crop) as to Seed previously purchased by the Grower"

Page 2 of Monsanto's Technology/Stewardship Agreement

What this means is that should a farmer, growing Monsanto's genetically modified crops, experience any problems, incur any damages, or be faced with losses related to those crops, the farmer is now liable. Any problems related to Monsanto's crops are now officially not Monsanto's problem.

This coming from the company that continually blocks independent analysis of their GM crop products, sues farmers who neighbor fields planted with Monsanto product when they cross pollinate non-Monsanto crops, and who actively seek out and destroy seed saving and sharing operations. These kinds of predatory practices are worse the the banking industry. This company is blatantly forcing farmers to put a noose around their necks and swing. Where is our government? Where are the agencies who supposedly protect farmers rights? All in the pockets of the corporation, and that doesn't take any far fetched assumptions.

So what is happening with Monsanto product that makes it so dangerous that the company won't try to defend its products or its growers? Recently Monsanto's products have been linked to numerous livestock problems, most notably miscarriages of pregnant livestock. Now as a farmer, when your animals lose their young, you can't go after Monsanto, and are out the money for the animals, time, labor, and the dangerous feed crop you fed your stock. Moreover when the threats of GM crops begin to be apparent in humans and their direct food chain, Monsanto will have already covered its tracks and be completely untouchable. This is a dangerous situation for our agricultural industry to be forced into.

Read the Treehugger article here, and the Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement here.

Support fair and reasonable business practices, buy local, buy organic, and if you buy seeds, track down the source so you don't find yourself with Monsanto product.

How Cuba Survived Peak Oil

"The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" was a movie I watched in a contemporary issues seminar I had back in college. This movie, is a relatively uplifting tail about the realities of Peak Oil and how the people can effect change when they act together for a common purpose. Of course their actions came out of necessity, but the people of Cuba were able to almost completely kick their dependence on oil overnight when the fall of the Soviet Union shut off their oil supply.

The movie below is subtitled in Spanish. I couldn't find a way to turn subtitles off but it should be useful for my multilingual readers.


The Power of Community. How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (sub español) from El Tránsito Necesario on Vimeo.


I think Cuba almost had it better than we do. Their change came over night, kind of an extreme slap in the face. The effects of Peak Oil on the US are going to be more subtle and drawn out. I feel like the frog, sitting in a pot of water, being brought to a slow boil. The nice part about Cuba's predicament was that their changes were facilitated by the government. Issuing rations of food, bicycles for transportation, and mandating a emphasis on urban organic agriculture. Not all these solutions would work as effectively here, but there are places around the States where these types of changes could do a lot to numb the Peak Oil fallout.

War on Guns Declared in New York.

Well the downstate, gun haters, at it again. Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice launched a ten month probe, looking into the counties gun stores. The goal of this probe was to expose gun shop owners who had been temporarily modifying weapons in violation of the state's assault weapons ban. The ban on assault weapons limits the number of "evil" features on a weapon, like the ability to accept high capacity magazines, flash hiders, or collapsible stocks. 


DA Rice's response to the results of this probe are appalling. Her disregard for the use of proper terminology, use of half truths, and misleading speech is going to cause trouble for gun owners state wide. Holding up a civilian legal AR-15 rifle, she refers to it as an assault weapon, which by definition it is not. 

"The nine men arrested today were openly breaking the law, making a practice of putting profits before the safety of our citizens, and flooding our streets with dangerous assault weapons," Rice said. "Make no mistake, these are combat-specific weapons and not intended for hunting. They have no place on our streets or in the hands of civilians."

DA Rice,  17Feb2011

I wonder what DA Rice would make of the millions of gun owners, nation wide, who use the SAME EXACT rifles that she is describing for things like the Civilian Marksmanship Program, 3 Gun Completions, Collections, Hunting, and Sport Shooting.

Undoubtedly her actions will lead to more senseless laws restricting our second amendment rights. My advice to my readers is to get out of New York while you can. Maybe state lawmakers will realize that their unconstitutional laws and insane taxes are driving people out of this state in droves. Buy up your weapons and ammunition while you can, and pray they don't try to take them. 

We're on the brink of a massive food crisis (go plant a garden!)

Well another cheerful reminder of how precarious our way of life has become, this time from Lester R Brown, a much respected author on the topic of imminent agricultural collapse. Feel free to cut to the full article on TreeHugger .

We have seen for the last few months consistently record breaking increases in the price of food. December's prices shattered the record previously set during the 2007-08 price surge. January, in turn, tackled the December record by 3%... I will assume that come March we will hear something similarly dreadful about February price increases. So that's why my celery is $2.89 per bundle....

Now I'm not going to sooth your growing concern by telling you that a "Victory Garden" is going to save your soul. The solution is no longer that simple, nor was it ever, really. (But please do so anyway, it will help!)

The reality is that should the agricultural product of 2011 be anything but a great success we are likely to see civil  unrest, war, and, possibly, the collapse of many governments around the world as shortages of food drive people to action. Countries depend on conditions that are no longer reliable; over-worked aquifers, petrochemical inputs, and consistent climate. In short many countries like India, China, the entire Middle East, and, to a lesser extent, United States are already facing problems with supplying their farm lands with what they need to survive.

Water tables are dropping substatially all over the world as aquifers are being pumped at hundreds of times their recharge rates. Oil is beginning to get scarce, and prices are as volatile as ever. This means that pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer prices are going to keep going up, straining already strapped farmers to the breaking point. Not to mention the cost of transporting, processing, and packaging those beloved processed foods is going to skyrocket. To top this trifecta off the climate is beginning to shift, leading to all sorts of dramatic events. Droughts, floods, hurricanes, extreme temperature swings, etc, have all become a reality.

So what does this mean for us now?

We have a rising demand for food, because of the increase in population. More mouths at the table means greater inequalities as portions are given out. And no amount of humanitarian aid is going to help people out this time. Technology, try as it might, is about twenty years away from being able to roll out, en mass, any sort of solution.

So its time to grow a garden, raise it sustainably, and pray our leaders can hold the rest of the world together.

China and New Nuclear, Looks like we missed the boat again!

Today we take a look at China and nuclear power, specifically their steps towards utilizing thorium fueled, molten salt reactors (or MSRs). China has recently announced a plan to make MASSIVE steps forward in the realm of clean nuclear energy by building dozens of new reactors over the next 20 years, in an effort to wean the country off of coal and towards clean alternatives.

Nuclear? A clean alternative? What? Yes! It can be done, here's how. During the 1960's and 70's the US was obsessed with nuclear energy and figured out many different ways of producing energy from nuclear reactions. However, not all reactor types were created equal, most created hazardous waste and nuclear by-products suitable for weapons, a few others were able to produce energy without the nuclear waste or weapons potential. Obviously a country interested in stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to vaporize the planet twenty times over is not interested in the latter, and plans for such reactors were shelved.

It didn't take long for other countries to recognize the potential of a reactor that didn't create a environmental disaster and that is where these MSR reactors come in. A MSR reactor can be powered with a element called Thorium, which is a cheap, abundant, and SAFE reactant. Add thorium to a MSR and you have a reactor that can do a great many things, namely operate in a much safer and cleaner way than conventional reactors, like the ones found in the US. These reactors are also meltdown-proof, as thorium cores are liquid and not solid, to they can't go critical. Another interesting fact about MSR's is that they can also be powered with existing stocks of nuclear waste, potentially a solution to our nuclear waste storage problems!

So why are nations like China, India, France and Norway on board and not the US? We got a late start, but the President specifically mentioned Oak Ridge National Laboratory (the place where thorium MSR's were first conceived) in his State of the Union Address. So there is hope for us yet... But... If we are not careful and get on with our own R&D we could find ourselves importing this technology back from China, and thus becoming dependent on another foreign energy source after oil....

That is where I draw the line. Importing energy sources or technology from other countries is what put us in the energy choke hold we're in now! We need to start working towards our future and clean nuclear is another perfect technology for Americans to champion. But I'l remind you all again that there is no silver bullet, no singular technology or change in practice that is going to save our hides. Energy has to come from many places such as the renewables; solar, wind, and geothermal, and clean nuclear if we can do it. But we also need to make a paradigm shift in our way of life. Staples like transportation, agriculture, land use, and standards of living, all need to change before we can expect to see great strides forward. And we need to do it together, as Americans fighting to keep America strong in the years to come.

Read the article from Wired.com here.

Excellent Example of Geothermal Success!

Well fist off let me apologize to my readers for not having anything new and interesting up here in the last eight days. It has been a busy and difficult week for me. Anyway you came here to be educated not hear me complain!

I was forwarded this link to an article on The Washington Post website about a contributor who switched their home over from conventional heating oil and air conditioning to geothermal for their HVAC needs. The author has a 4,400 square foot home in Montgomery County, Maryland. This immense house came with a likewise immense HVAC bill, but the decision to switch to geothermal was made for mainly monetary reasons. The author compared the costs of replacing their heating oil burning furnace and other HVAC equipment with conventional HVAC equipment, like they already had, but also clean alternatives such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Between matters of practicality, cost, and return on investment, the author and his family settled on geothermal.

The projected costs for new conventional HVAC equipment ranged in the $9,500 and $11,000 range, however geothermal would cost them $23,950, before tax credits. They were able to apply for national, state, and county level tax credits including a 30% national tax credit, and another $7,000 from state and county governments. This brought the total cost of their project down low enough to compete with conventional HVAC replacements. One thing I should note is that later in the article the author does mention the cost of additional electricity to power the geothermal system and the cost of heating oil for the conventional HVAC system. When they originally started their project heating oil cost $2.61/gal, and now heating oil costs $3.91/gal. This price changes depending on where you live, but one thing that you cannot escape is the fact that prices are predicted to rise steeply in the next few years. All things considered the author claims they will recoup their original investment in 4.4 years, and from then on be saving nearly $2,500 annually.

My personal opinion is that geothermal is the way to g if you want cheap and reliable HVAC for your home. If you are worried about added electrical expenses then I suggest you factor in the cost of a inexpensive solar panel system, which can be had for $600-$1,000, to supplement your home electricity needs. By providing a constant room temperature by means of a geothermal system, you will have to heat and cool your house with less effort, meaning more savings. This also will allow you to save money on utilities and heating oil that you can spend to further your homes efficiency with better insulation or windows and doors (all of which are usually the biggest reasons for a homes energy inefficiency). If you can obtain a small loan or have the extra cash to lay out I would suggest geothermal as a great starting point, or addition, to a sustainable or energy efficient home. With greater efficiency, comes greater independence for you and our country.

For more information on how geothermal works check out this article from Popular Mechanics.

The Two Faces of a Carbon Neutral China: More Hydro Expansion Threatens World Heritage Site

The goal of becoming carbon neutral is a lofty one and countries all over the world have made all sorts of promises claiming they are making steps to become carbon neutral. However sometimes there becomes a point when blind ambition, politics, and money are too deeply involved in these goals. One such example is China.

For the last few years we have been hearing a lot about China's plans to build massive, record shattering, hydroelectric plants and water diversion systems. The result of all this progress has been the relocation of hundreds of thousands of people, destruction of habitat for hundreds of endangered species, and loss of many culturally important sites. Moreover the planned expansions to take place within the next five to ten years, threatens millions more.

One such plan that has been on and off for a few years now is the hydroelectric dam on the Nu River in the South Central region of China. The planned 21.3GW project, not only will call for the relocation for over 50,000 residents, it will also threaten up to 80 endangered species, threaten the water supply of Burma and Thailand, and dam one of the last free flowing rivers in China. The Nu River carved what many call the "Grand Canyon of The Orient", and the over 13 individual dams that are planned will surely destroy much of its grandeur. For more on this see this article on Treehugger or this report from The Guardian.

So is the price too high for a carbon neutral China? Or is this the kind of progress that must be made? What can The United States learn from China's expansion, and the controversy it has raised? I welcome your comments on the topic.

Bladeless Wind Turbines; An Interesting Concept For Alternative Energy.

Yesterday on The Tiny Life, I saw this article on a bladeless wind turbine concept that is more animal and NIMBY friendly. The concept is that a stack of blocks or forms made of foam, or other materials of similar density, are attached to poles in a grid-like pattern. These poles have small alternators at their connection that turn the movement into energy. As the blocks swing, or vibrate, back and forth in the wind they generator produce electricity. 

The novel part of these generators is how they operate, the lack of large moving blades and tall towers, leave a very small physical and visual footprint. The low density blocks begin to move in the slowest of breezes, meaning that they will produce at least a little energy in low winds. The lack of spinning blades mean that these generators are more friendly to animals frequently disturbed by the typical wind turbine. Bats, migrating birds, eagles, hawks, bees, etc. are all in danger from the large spinning blades. No blades, no danger! And the NIMBY crowd will love these because of the low visual impact. 

My verdict on these bladeless turbines is that they are not a solution to energy problems, but another helping hand along the way. They might work well in urban and suburban situations, but I doubt that they will draw much power. The design seems to be limited in that sense. That being said a well designed and advanced iteration of this concept might be able to power a small home, or a very efficient home. Large scale energy production with this concept will likely remain a concept. 

Stay safe in this snow!

The Navy and Marine Corps Embrace Alternative Energy to Save Lives and Reduce Fossil Fuel Use

Being a part of the United States Military myself, I relish the opportunity to speak about the great things the Military is doing to save the lives of soldiers. Today on Treehugger I saw a post about how the Marine Corps have been experimenting with solar charging systems to reduce the need for fuel to power electric generators. 

According to the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the two main systems employed in the field are their Ground Renewable Energy Networks (GREENS), and the Solar Portable Alternative Communications Energy Systems (SPACES). With these two new systems, along with the deployment of LED lighting systems, Solar Shades, and Solar Light Trailers, the Marines saw a reduction of up to 90% in their fuel consumption. These systems allowed for the Marines to overcome many obstacles. By using the SPACES system Marines could recharge batteries on extended patrols, no need to return to their FOB to resupply. The introduction of GREENS PV battery charging system allowed larger bases to reduce their daily fuel consumption to 2-3 gallons from 25. 

These advancements make many things possible but the biggest advantage is saving lives. The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve every technology possible to help them accomplish their missions and return home safely. By deploying these systems in the field fuel resupply convoys will not have to risk their lives and equipment. A 90% reduction in fuel consumption means a 90% reduction in the supply chain that delivers that fuel. A 90% reduction in vulnerable fuel tankers and supply trucks exposed to IED's and ambushes. This is a huge step forward in reducing the Military's dependence on foreign oil and fuel, and anything to save the lives of our Soldiers is supremely important. The ONR's full report is available here.

Eager to start a garden this spring? Beware of seeds from Monsanto!

If you are like me you enjoy watching the crops and flowers you plant in the spring grow and develop. There is certainly nothing more satisfying than reaping that which you sow, but this day in age it can be a lot more complicated than that. As we all know many seed varieties out there are genetically modified to produce stronger, more productive plants, seemingly a great concept. However, there are many problems with this concept.

My biggest issue with this whole arrangement is that very few companies hold a monopoly on the supply of seeds, making them a very pretty, not so green, penny. Along with that these companies are into some very shady practice. For instance, the company Monsanto, one of the worlds largest seed producers is famous for suing farmers who grow crops adjacent to farms using Monsanto seeds. Their argument is that because the crops near the Monsanto plants might be fertilized by the Monsanto plant's pollen, those farmers then owe Monsanto royalties for the genetic information passed on. Utterly outrageous. Once more these seeds are often times designed so that their progeny are sterile and seeds collected from these genetically modified crops will, often times, not grow. This obviously forces farmers to continuously buy from one company. For sake of time, I won't start on how these seeds are often sold as part of a package deal of fertilizers and pesticides that are REQUIRED for these seeds to flourish.

If all this strikes you odd and maybe even enrages you slightly consider this article by Colleen Vanderlinden, titled; Keeping Monsanto Out Of Your Garden This Spring. In it she addresses which companies are owned by and sell seeds produced by companies like Monsanto and others. She also gives you some tips on knowing what to look for when buying seeds. If you want my opinion and you are from the Northeast, talk to the oldest person you know with a garden. Often times they keep their seeds for generations, and will have some genuine non-GMO heirloom varieties. If that doesn't work talk to the people at your local Farmers Market or Organic Co-Op, they will be able to point you to the varieties and companies, that work best with your local area. If all else fails start Googling, AND READ!

Collaborative Consumption, the return of a barter economy?

After watching Rachel Botsman's talk about Collaborative Consumption on TED, I find myself thinking more and more about barter economies and how incredible a resource the internet has become for the modern person with  a skill or product to sell.

What interests me more than the idea of sharing our possessions, or trading our possessions for another's, is the amount of trust and collaboration that it takes to get these transactions to take place. For years I have used sites like Craigslist and eBay to buy and sell just about anything, but also to look for jobs, sell my skills, and hire employees. But these are easily made transactions, things like sharing a car or tools take a considerably larger amount of trust. The fact that people can still trust each other to do these things is fantastic. Is this possibly a sign of a renewed sense of community brought on by our reliance of the internet? Fascinating.

So this new economy, an economy of content rather than ownership, what does that mean for local economies? Can we introduce these macro ideas of sharing over the internet to our micro, local, economies? I think we can, and many of these sites do just that. For instance Craigslist has a page for just about every major or large city or region of a state. The movement towards redistribution of possessions through these channels and in person transactions could help reinvent the local economy and interest in community. I like.