>    From: "MJ" <mike211@...>
>
> The problem is that focussing on CO2 ignores the real problem -- air
> pollution.

But fortunately, CO2 and what you define as "air pollution" generally
go in lock-step -- the easiest way to reduce one also reduces the
other.

So why rail against CO2 reduction? Reducing CO2 emissions will
necessarily reduce other pollution as well!

I agree that pollution that directly hurts someone is easier to make a
case against. But why do you seem to insist that people don't also make
a case against CO2? Certainly, there are plenty of cases to go around!

Most people who don't like CO2 reduction are "energy bigots" -- they
understand the deep implication that CO2 reduction is basically
fossil-fuel reduction, and don't want to go there.

:::: Don't anthropomorphize computers -- they hate it when you do that!
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Item/99-3024-31>

[]

[]


A weekly newsletter from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/>Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE). The EERE Network News is also available on the Web at:
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/>www.eere.energy.gov/news/


January 26, 2005




News and Events

     * Home Builders Set New National Guidelines for Green Homes
     * California Government and Agencies Commit to Green Building
     * DOE and USDA Offer up to $15 Million for Biomass Projects
     * Kansas, Vermont, and New Jersey Encourage Wind Power but Set Limits
     * First Utility-Scale Wind Plants Slated for New Jersey and Montana
     * Gamesa to Produce Wind Turbine Blades in Pennsylvania


Energy Connections

     * Growth in Global Oil Demand to Slow in 2005, Says IEA
[]



News and Events




Home Builders Set New National Guidelines for Green Homes

[]


Photo of a small home.


This energy-efficient home in Texas demonstrates affordable green building.
Credit: Sustainable Living Alliance

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has introduced new
voluntary guidelines to help mainstream homebuilders incorporate
environmental practices into every phase of the home building process while
putting a priority on housing affordability. NAHB unveiled the Model Green
Home Building Guidelines during last week's International Builders' Show in
Orlando, Florida. NAHB claims that green building has primarily been the
province of high-end, niche builders who cater to a wealthy clientele,
while the new guidelines aim to help builders construct resource-efficient
homes that are both affordable and customized to local conditions. The
guidelines offer voluntary, builder- and market-driven green solutions for
lot design and preparation; resource, energy, and water efficiency; indoor
environmental quality; operation, maintenance, and home owner operation;
global impact; and site planning and land development. Developed for
single-family homes, the guidelines also are applicable for multifamily and
custom homes as well as remodeling projects for existing homes. See the
<http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?sectionID=148&newsID=1331>NAHB press
release and <http://www.nahb.org/gbg>Model Green Home Building Guidelines.

The NAHB also introduced the Green Building Initiative, a new
not-for-profit organization supported by groups and individuals interested
in promoting energy efficient and environmentally sustainable practices in
residential and commercial construction. See the
<http://www.thegbi.org/home/default.asp>Green Building Initiative Web site.

The new guidelines and the Green Building Initiative are sure to be
important topics of discussion at the 2005 National Green Builders
Conference, the only national conference targeted to green building for the
mainstream residential building industry. The conference will be held in
Atlanta, Georgia, in mid-March. See the
<http://www.nahb.org/meeting_details.aspx?meetingID=3249§ionID=121>conferenc\
e
announcement on the NAHB Web site.


California Government and Agencies Commit to Green Building

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order in
mid-December that commits the state to following a Green Building Action
Plan with two goals: to reduce electricity purchased from the grid by
existing government and private commercial buildings by 20 percent by 2015
through energy efficiency and distributed generation; and to retrofit,
build, and operate public buildings that are highly efficient in terms of
energy use and resource consumption. To help meet those goals, the
executive order requires state-run entities to purchase Energy Star
equipment; seek out leases in Energy Star-rated buildings; and design,
construct, and operate all new and renovated state-owned and state-funded
facilities to meet the Silver LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) certification from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). See the
governor's
<http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?sFilePath=%2fgovsi\
te%2fexecutive_orders%2f20041214_S-20-04.html&sCatTitle=Press+Release>executive
order and
<http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?sCatTitle=Press+Re\
lease&sFilePath=/govsite/press_release/2004_12/20041214_GAAS54904_CommissionsPat\
h15.html&iOID=60142>press
release.

The state's two large retirement funds­the California Public Employees'
Retirement System (CalPERS) and California State Teachers' Retirement
System (CalSTRS)­both set goals in December to reduce the energy use in
their real estate holdings by 20 percent over the next five years.
Together, the two funds hold more than 200 million square feet of real
estate. The California State Treasurer has estimated that the energy
efficiency improvements will cost the two funds a total of $200 million,
but will save $40.6 million in energy costs each year, reduce total energy
demand by 73 megawatts, and create 4,200 jobs. The two funds have also
committed a combined $450 million to private equity investment in
cutting-edge environmental technology and renewable energy. See the
treasurer's press releases for CalPERS
(<http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/news/releases/2004/121304_eniv.pdf>PDF 171
KB) and CalSTRS
(<http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/news/releases/2004/120204_strsgreen.pdf>PDF
171 KB). <http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/alternate.html>Download
Acrobat Reader.

The state's efforts in energy efficiency and green building follow the
example of a Green Building Ordinance enacted in San Francisco in October
2004. The Green Building Ordinance requires all new city projects,
including both city-owned facilities and leased properties, to achieve at
least a LEED Silver certification. A prime example is the new California
Academy of Sciences museum (soon to be built in Golden Gate Park), which is
designed to earn the LEED Platinum certification, the highest certification
available from the U.S. Green Building Council. See the
<http://temp.sfgov.org/sfenvironment/articles_pr/2004/pr/102704.htm>San
Francisco Department of Environment press release, the
<http://www.calacademy.org/newacademy/index.php>California Academy of
Sciences Web site, and design information on the
<http://194.185.232.3/works/063/descr.asp>Renzo Piano Building Workshop Web
site.

The USGBC's LEED Green Building Rating System sets five levels of
certification for buildings: certified, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.
LEED standards are currently available or under development for a wide
variety of buildings. See the <http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/LEED_main.asp>LEED
page on the USGBC Web site.


DOE and USDA Offer up to $15 Million for Biomass Projects

DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a joint
solicitation in late December for development and demonstration projects
that lead to greater commercialization of biobased products, biomass
energy, biofuels, and related processes. This year's solicitation is
focused on developing and producing biomass feedstocks; developing biobased
products and evaluating their environmental and economic performance;
integrating natural resource management and biomass use; and analyzing
incentives for commercializing biomass technologies. Pre-applications are
due by February 15th, and full applications are due by April 15th. DOE and
USDA expect to provide as much as $15 million for the projects as part of
their collaboration on the
<http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/default.asp>Biomass Research and
Development Initiative. See the
<http://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/USDA/NRCS/2890/67-3A75-5-22/listing.html>so\
licitation.

A new research laboratory at DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) is expected to advance biomass energy technologies by probing
biomass-to-energy conversion processes at the atomic and molecular levels.
The $2.85-million Biomass Surface Characterization Laboratory features an
array of electron and optical microscopes, as well other advanced research
tools. The lab includes systems to monitor and maintain temperature,
humidity, acoustical vibration, and cleanliness to the most exacting
standards, while employing the latest computer hardware and software
systems to capture, record, and analyze the data. See the
<http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2005/0305_plants_for_fuels.html>NREL press
release.


Kansas, Vermont, and New Jersey Encourage Wind Power but Set Limits

Kansas, Vermont, and New Jersey have seen fit recently to note the benefits
of wind power, but to limit its development in certain areas. Kansas is
limiting wind plants on grasslands, Vermont is limiting wind plants on
state lands, and New Jersey has placed a moratorium on offshore wind power
development.

In Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius announced in mid-January that she had
adopted a set of recommendations for wind energy development while
preserving the tallgrass prairie in the Flint Hills region. The key element
of the plan is to defer to local control and decision- making and provide
tools, best practices, and guidelines to assist local governments. The
governor showed her support for wind power by calling on electric utilities
to have at least 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity installed in
Kansas by 2015, and asked utility regulators to examine the benefits this
goal. The governor also asked the Kansas Energy Council to analyze the
impact of requiring state facilities to draw on renewable energy for
between 2.5 to 5 percent of their electricity. The governor called on the
Kansas Energy Council to develop standards for locating wind power
facilities and has requested $800,000 in state funds to help wind
developers. See the governor's
<http://www.ksgovernor.org/news/docs/news_rel011405b.html>press release.

In Vermont, the Agency of Natural Resources concluded in December that
large-scale wind plants should not be built on state-owned lands. Noting
that Vermonters largely support the development of renewable energy
resources, the new policy still encourages small-scale wind installations
on state lands when appropriate. See the
<http://www.vermontwindpolicy.org/>Vermont Wind Policy Web site.

In New Jersey, Acting Governor Richard Codey noted the benefits of wind
power and the state's commitment to renewable energy while placing a
15-month freeze on the funding and permitting of wind projects offshore of
the state's coast, due to concerns about protecting the marine and coastal
environment. In late December, the acting governor appointed a blue-ribbon
panel to study the appropriateness of offshore wind power installations
near the Jersey Shore; their report is due in March 2006. See the acting
governor's
<http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=2286>pres\
s
release.

Currently, the only company publicly planning to build wind power
facilities near the Jersey Shore is Winergy, LLC. However, Winergy's
planned facilities­called Asbury Park, Great Egg, and Five Fathom Bank­are
all located in federal waters at least 3.5 miles off the coast. The
projects have seen little progress since Winergy announced them in October
2002. See the <http://www.winergyllc.com/index.shtml>Winergy Web site.


First Utility-Scale Wind Plants Slated for New Jersey and Montana

[]


Computer-generated image of four wind turbines installed at a w


The Altantic City Wind Farm will be built at a wastewater facility and will
feature five wind turbines, four of which are shown in this
computer-generated image.
Credit: Atlantic County Utilities Authority

While offshore wind development in New Jersey has ground to a halt, the
state's first large onshore wind project is moving ahead. The 7.5-megawatt
Atlantic City Wind Farm is expected to start operating in mid-year. The
wind plant developer, Community Energy, Inc., reached an agreement with the
New Jersey Audubon Society in mid-December, allowing the project to move
ahead. Community Energy and the Audubon Society will launch a detailed
study using new radar technology to determine if the wind turbine towers
affect bird migration. The facility will feature five 1.5-megawatt wind
turbines from GE Energy and will be built at a wastewater treatment
facility operated by the Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA). See
the <http://www.communityenergy.biz/cei_pr_ac_windfarm.html>Community
Energy press release and the <http://www.acua.com/windpower.asp>ACUA Web site.

Montana is also poised to receive its first large-scale wind plant, as
NorthWestern Energy has agreed to purchase the power output from a
$150-million wind facility to be constructed by Invenergy Wind LLC. The
wind plant will have a capacity of 135 to 150 megawatts and will be located
near Judith Gap in south-central Montana. The 8,000-acre wind facility will
feature roughly 75 to 100 turbines with a capacity of about 1.5 to 1.8
megawatts each. Construction is expected to begin before mid-2005. See the
<http://www.northwesternenergy.com/AboutUs/newsroom/display_news.aspx?M=1611&I=1\
69&document_id=396>NorthWestern
Energy press release.

A number of other wind power projects are now in various stages of progress
throughout the country. In Washington, Puget Sound Energy (PSE) has agreed
to buy the proposed 150-megawatt Hopkins Ridge Wind Project from Blue Sky
Wind LLC. Located near Dayton in the southeast corner of the state, the
project is expected to start producing power by mid-2006. In Oregon,
Portland General Electric (PGE) agreed to buy power from a 75-megawatt
expansion of the Klondike II Wind Project located near Wasco, just south of
the state's northern border. In Kansas, PPM Energy is moving ahead with the
150-megawatt Elk River Wind Power Project, located near Beaumont, about 45
miles east of Wichita. Texas is also gaining another large wind plant, as
AES Corporation announced on January 11th that it will buy SeaWest
Holdings, Inc., and in the process, it plans to acquire and build SeaWest's
planned 120-megawatt Buffalo Gap wind project near Abilene. AEP plans to
complete construction by year-end. Finally, MidAmerican Energy has finished
building the 160.5-megawatt Intrepid Wind Project in Sac and Buena Vista
counties in northwest Iowa. The project is the largest in the state and
will be joined this summer by the company's 150-megawatt Century Wind
Project, located near Blairsburg in north-central Iowa. MidAmerican Energy
even posted a virtual tour of the wind project. See the press releases from
<http://www.pse.com/news/2004/pr20041201a.html>PSE,
<http://www.portlandgeneral.com/about_pge/news/wind_power_purchase.asp>PGE,
<http://www.ppmenergy.com/rel_04.12.14.html>PPM Energy,
<http://www.aes.com/aes/index?page=news&reqid=661525>AES, and
<http://www.midamericanenergy.com/newsroom/asp/news.asp>MidAmerican, and
see the <http://www.midamericanenergy.com/html/aboutus3c.asp>MidAmerican
virtual tour.


Gamesa to Produce Wind Turbine Blades in Pennsylvania

Spanish company Gamesa, the second-largest wind energy company in the
world, announced last week that it will build a high-tech plant to
manufacture wind turbine blades in Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, about 20 miles
west of Altoona. The new manufacturing plant will create as many as 500
construction and operations jobs, including 236 permanent positions. Gamesa
previously announced that its U.S. headquarters and East Coast development
offices would be located in Pennsylvania. Together with the construction,
operation, and maintenance of its wind facilities, Gamesa's manufacturing
facility and two Philadelphia offices are expected to create up to 1,000
jobs in the state over the next five years. Gamesa claims to have
agreements with Pennsylvania utilities for the sale of 600 megawatts of
wind power, and has set itself a target for reaching 1,000 megawatts of
wind power in the state. See the
<http://www.gamesa.es/ingles/noticias/noticias/cont_noticia.jsp?not=1035>Gamesa
press release.
[]



Energy Connections




Growth in Global Oil Demand to Slow in 2005, Says IEA

After a 3.3 percent growth in global demand for oil in 2004, the
International Energy Agency (IEA) expects the growth in demand to slow this
year to about a 1.7 percent annual rate. According to the IEA's "Oil Market
Report" (OMR), published last week, the growth in oil demand will continue
to be led by China and developing countries in Asia. See the IEA's
"<http://omrpublic.iea.org/>Highlights of the Latest OMR."

A top executive at ExxonMobil Corporation noted in early January that the
growing world demand for oil and gas is creating challenges for global oil
production, because the world's oil and gas fields on average are declining
in production at a rate of 4 to 6 percent per year. According to Senior
Vice President Stuart McGill, this base decline, coupled with the growing
demand for oil and gas, means that the amount of new daily production
needed in 2020 is nearly equivalent to replacing all of today's daily
production.

"Plenty of oil and gas remains around the world, but it will take the best
technology and the most capable and efficient organizations to produce it,"
said McGill. See the
<http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/Newsreleases/xom_nr_110105.asp>Exx\
onMobil
press release.

This newsletter is funded by DOE's <http://www.eere.energy.gov/>Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and is also available on the
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/>EERE news page. You can
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/about.cfm>subscribe to the EERE Network
News using our simple online form, and you can also
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/changes.cfm>update your email address or
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/unsubscribe.cfm>unsubscribe online.

If you have questions or comments about this newsletter, please
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/editor.cfm>contact the editor.
[]

You are currently subscribed as: tomgray@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Becaue the average Homer Simpson American does not understand CO2 or
greenhouse gasses, however they CAN understand smog.  The problem with your
CO2 fixation is that the problem is not being comunicated to the big
wasters/polluters.  Continue preaching your CO2 littany to the converted if it
makes you feel good, but as you can see it's not gaining much ground with the
vast majority of American uber-consumers.
MJ

> So why rail against CO2 reduction? Reducing CO2 emissions will
> necessarily reduce other pollution as well!
>
> I agree that pollution that directly hurts someone is easier to make a
> case against. But why do you seem to insist that people don't also make
> a case against CO2? Certainly, there are plenty of cases to go around!
>
> Most people who don't like CO2 reduction are "energy bigots" -- they
> understand the deep implication that CO2 reduction is basically
> fossil-fuel reduction, and don't want to go there.
>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37783-2005Jan26?

Senate Panel OKs Bush's Pick for Energy Job


Reuters
Wednesday, January 26, 2005; 9:48 AM



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sam Bodman, President Bush's pick to be the
next U.S. energy secretary, was approved on Wednesday by the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

His nomination now goes to the full Senate for final approval, which
is expected.

Bodman will leave his current post as U.S. deputy treasury secretary
to replace outgoing Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a former U.S.
senator from Michigan.

Bodman, age 66, said at his confirmation hearing last week that he
supports opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The Republican-controlled Congress is expected to have enough votes
to later this year give oil companies access to the Alaskan refuge.

Bodman said he generally supports a "balanced" approach in opening
more federal lands to drilling that weighs environmental protection
against the nation's growing need for energy.

Bodman said passing comprehensive energy legislation is among the
most important matters before Congress this year, calling a stable
supply of energy "the lifeblood" of the U.S. economy.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Monday that clearing an
energy bill is one of the top ten legislative priorities for
Republicans.

Bodman was a chemical engineering professor and chairman of Cabot
Corp., a specialty chemicals company from 1987 through 2001.

Bodman was confirmed twice before for senior jobs at the Commerce and
Treasury departments during the past four years.

The Energy Department, with a $23 billion budget, runs a network of
nuclear weapons research laboratories and has over 100,000 employees
and contractors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37783-2005Jan26?







++++++++++++++++++++++++++STOP THE WALL++++++++++++++++++++++++++

www.stopthewall.org www.nad-plo.org www.hrw.org www.pal-arc.org
www.endtheoccupation.org www.sustaincampaign.org







---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good Day MJ,

I must first admit that I am culturally deprived or is it depraved?  Watch
out for us stressed out Americans.  I just don't spend that many hours
watching television, which in many ways might be considered intellectual
pollution.  This email is dedicated to the memory of Johnny Carson, a man
who made this place a little more tolerable.

Since alternative energy provides very few jobs, I am presently working
selling HVAC to old Homer.  Imagine my frustration, when Homer decides to
keep his old rusting furnace, which wastes half of the energy it burns.
Most people pass over the Energy Star models, and buy a 80% AFUE model, when
the old furnace dies.  Natural gas went up 20% in the last twelve months.  A
93% AFUE furnace costs around $1200 more, installed.  The typical gas bill
runs around $90.00 in the winter for heating in the temperate coastal
regions.  This works out to an average of $350.00 a year.  The Energy Star
(93% AFUE) furnace saves about $56.88 a year in gas over the standard (80%
AFUE).  By the second year the annual savings would be $68.26.  The third
year annual savings would be $81.91.  The fourth year annual savings would
be $98.29.

On the other hand, replacing the 40% AFUE with the 80% AFUE furnace has a
reasonable return on investment.

When the old furnace finally rusts through its heat exchanger, the old
furnace begins to add carbon monoxide to the recirculated air.  At first
this poison causes head aches and brain damage, but eventually we see the
Darwin effect.  Through his gross stupidity, Homer has removed himself from
the gene pool, when the carbon monoxide kills him.

Now what is the depletion rate of natural gas?  There is no consensus.
Natural gas tends to deplete at a faster rate than oil, where steam
injection can bring heavy oil to the surface after the lighter crude has
been pumped out.  Already we are seeing natural gas being shipped around the
world in tankers as local sources are running out.  Yet, we are building new
power plants in California that will increase the demand for natural gas.
John Gotthold, president of the local American Hydrogen Association, has
presented data at our monthly meetings, which seems to support the theory
that demand will exceed supply in the year 2007.

Now, there is hope!  In the past natural gas has increased in price by
single digits.  This year we will see double digits.  Maybe next year or by
2007 we will see triple digits.

It gets better.  Most homes now have some attic insulation, but walls and
floors are rarely insulated in older homes.  Duct work is rarely upgraded or
even maintained.  Imagine the pollution that comes from the wasted energy,
leaking from ducts, that heats the crawl spaces or the attics.  The animal
rights terrorists should be happy, since rats, living crawl spaces with
damaged vent screens, enjoy the warmth.  Last year I had a Lady Homer, who
was spending $800.00 a month on energy for a 4000 square foot home, but
refused to consider high efficiency equipment and insulated ducts, but
instead went with the "lowest bidder" to replace her aging equipment.

The real problem is that Homer has Rectal Myopia.  Why don't you and I form
a startup company to manufacture glass abdominal windows, so that Homer can
regain his vision?  No wonder the guy has a shitty out look on life!

Silly in Sunnyvale (I loved the ending of Sleepless in Seattle),
Chuck
   -----Original Message-----
   From: MJ [mailto:mike211@...]
   Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:30 PM
   To: tomorrow-energy@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: RE: [tomorrow-energy] CO2 scams


   Chuck,

   The problem is that focussing on CO2 ignores the real problem -- air
pollution.
   Most Americans understand that smog kills, all this fooferaw over CO2 just
   confuses tham.  Of course all those beating the CO2 drum are against
pollution
   too.  But they've missed the point that most Americans don't know or care
what
   they're ranting about. Ask most Americans and you'll get this response:
   "Greenhouse gasses?  I don't own a greenhouse, it's not my problem."
   You guys do a great job preaching to the converted, but your message is
not
   getting thru to Homer Simpson.  Focus on stopping smog, that's something
most
   Americans can understand.

   MJ

   >
   > Good Day MJ,
   >
   > I understand your frustration, and agree with your concern over the
general
   > disregard for pollution by many people.  The big question is do you want
to
   > bring about change or just vent your rage at a system that seems to
ignore
   > you.  I would guess that if I was to confront you and try to physically
push
   > you that you would do your best to knock me back on my ass.  I would
   > probably do the same, if someone was to push me.
   >
   > Here in California most cities provide roadside recycling, where on
garbage
   > day, the recyclables are picked up and taken to a centralized recycling
   > center.  Just a few years ago, most recyclables went to the landfill.
Years
   > ago tetraethyl lead was added to gasoline, which caused lead
particulates to
   > poison the land alongside of freeways.  Today, we use lead free
gasoline.
   > Today, solar panels are in short supply and wind power was advertised on
the
   > Olympic Games.  These positive changes were brought about by polite
people,
   > who presented convincing arguments.
   >
   > The same scientists who are worried about CO2 are worried about acid
rain,
   > resource depletion, carcinogenic particulates, and other forms of
pollution.
   > You might find that these same people, who you attack with such venom,
could
   > be your strongest supporters.
   >
   > People want to be shown a better future by leaders, not insulted by
angry
   > protestors.  Your heart is in the right place, and I think a man as
smart
   > and concerned as you can make great contributions.  We need people to
focus
   > their passion on making positive changes, to help lead us all to a
better
   > future.
   >
   > I look forward to seeing positive solutions to some of these problems.
   >
   > Best Wishes Brother,
   > Chuck Nolan
   > President
   > Modular Energy Solutions -
   > Tomorrow's energy today
   > 182 N. Taaffe St
   > Sunnyvale, CA 94086-4919
   > United States
   > T: 408-733-8749
   > F: 408-733-8779
   > E: chucknln@...
   >   -----Original Message-----
   >   From: MJ [mailto:mike211@...]
   >   Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:46 PM
   >   Subject: [tomorrow-energy] CO2 scams
   >
   >
   >
   >   CO2 isn't pollution, it's a scam. Pollution is the stuff that makes
you
   > sick.
   >   CO2 concentrations would have to be 1000 times the concentration in
the
   >   atmosphere before it ever even started to be a toxic problem.  Nobody
is
   >   dieing from CO2 poisoning.  Tens of thousands are dieing from
   > urban-industrial
   >   pollution, and the problem has been around since the end of ww2.  CO2
and
   >   global warming are just the latest in a long line of excuses that city
   >   inhabitants have used to avoid coming to grips with the basic fact
that
   > smog
   >   kills.  City people are shitting in their nest, then rolling in it and
   > blaming
   >   the smell on their neighbor's farts.  There is no point taking any of
this
   > CO2
   >   scam seriously until there is meaningful efforts on the part of cities
to
   > stop
   >   smog.  It's very easy to do and there is no excuse to keep putting it
off
   >   while more and more people die from it.
   >
   >   CO2 is Carbon Dioxide it's not smog and it won't kill you or even make
you
   >   sick in the concentrations found in the atmosphere. SMOG is the mix of
   > toxic
   >   air pollutants that kill.  CO2 is a big red herring.
   >
   >   The industrial revolution has been the central cause for the increase
in
   >   pollutants in the atmosphere over the last three centuries. Before
1950,
   > the
   >   majority of this pollution was created from the burning of coal for
energy
   >   generation, space heating, cooking, and transportation. Under the
right
   >   conditions, the smoke and sulfur dioxide produced from the burning of
coal
   > can
   >   combine with fog to create industrial smog. In high concentrations,
   > industrial
   >   smog can be extremely toxic to humans and other living organisms.
London
   > is
   >   world famous for its episodes of industrial smog. The most famous
London
   > smog
   >   event occurred in December, 1952 when five days of calm foggy weather
   > created
   >   a toxic atmosphere that claimed about 4000 human lives. Today, the use
of
   >   other fossil fuels, nuclear power, and hydroelectricity instead of
coal
   > has
   >   greatly reduced the occurrence of industrial smog. However, the
burning of
   >   fossil fuels like gasoline can create another atmospheric pollution
   > problem
   >   known as photochemical smog. Photochemical smog is a condition that
   > develops
   >   when primary pollutants (oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic
compounds
   >   created from fossil fuel combustion) interact under the influence of
   > sunlight
   >   to produce a mixture of hundreds of different and hazardous chemicals
   > known as
   >   secondary pollutants. The Table below [see URL] describes the major
toxic
   >   constituents of photochemical smog and their effects on the
environment.
   >   Development of photochemical smog is typically associated with
specific
   >   climatic conditions and centers of high population density. Cities
like
   > Los
   >   Angeles, New York, Sydney, and Vancouver frequently suffer episodes of
   >   photochemical smog. In recent years, scientists have also noticed that
   > smaller
   >   communities can develop similar pollution problems if conditions are
   > right.
   >
   >   more:
   >   http://royal.okanagan.bc.ca/mpidwirn/atmosphereandclimate/smog.html
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   >   Alternate Energy Resource Network
   >   http://www.alternate-energy.net
   >   Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
   >   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
   >   Alternative Energy Politics
   >   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
   >   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   >
   >
   >
   >


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   > --
   >   Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
   >     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/
   >
   >     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >     tomorrow-energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   >
   >     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   > Alternate Energy Resource Network
   > http://www.alternate-energy.net
   > Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
   > Alternative Energy Politics
   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
   > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   >
   > Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >





   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Alternate Energy Resource Network
   http://www.alternate-energy.net
   Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
   Alternative Energy Politics
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     tomorrow-energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chuck,
I sell and install HVAC and also teach energy conserving house building
techniques.  I only use 90+ efficient gas furnaces, or fan coil systems and
always include a Heat Recovery Ventilator.  It's a small but dedicated market
of people who build new houses or remodel old houses to improve the 'energy
efficiency' of the whole house.  Building energy efficient houses gives lower
mortgage rates and much higher levels of comfort. Of course, living in a
climate of 12000+ heating degree days significantly improves the economics of
energy conserving houses.
MJ
>
> Good Day MJ,
>
> I must first admit that I am culturally deprived or is it depraved?  Watch
> out for us stressed out Americans.  I just don't spend that many hours
> watching television, which in many ways might be considered intellectual
> pollution.  This email is dedicated to the memory of Johnny Carson, a man
> who made this place a little more tolerable.
>
> Since alternative energy provides very few jobs, I am presently working
> selling HVAC to old Homer.
>   Chuck,
>

Chuck,
Your experience with Homer underscores the point I made that Homer can't
understand CO2 and greenhouse gasses or global warming, but he can barely
understand smog.  That's why I maintain that 'public' education about smog on
TV and billboards will likely impact more typical Americans than anything said
about CO2 and greenhouse gasses or global warming.  Reducing smog is the
easiest path to reducing greenhouse gasses.
MJ
>
> Since alternative energy provides very few jobs, I am presently working
selling HVAC to old Homer.
>   Chuck,
>

American Wind Energy Assocation
Date: January 27, 2005
Contact:
Kathy Belyeu (202) 413-2607
Ryan Wagner (202) 828-9726

U.S. WIND INDUSTRY CONTINUES EXPANSION OF CLEAN, DOMESTIC ENERGY SOURCE
Over 20 New Projects Added in 2004 Despite Incentive Uncertainty


The U.S. wind energy industry turned in a solid performance in 2004, adding
389 megawatts (MW) of new generating equipment to the nationwide fleet, or
enough to serve more than 100,000 average homes, according to the
Washington, D.C.-based American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

Total new additions were down sharply from the highs in the boom years of
2001 (1,696 MW) and 2003 (1,687 MW).  At year's end, the trade group said,
utility-scale wind installations in 30 states across the country totalled
6,740  MW, enough to serve more than 1.6 million households.

The small but burgeoning industry is hard at work planning projects that
should make 2005 a record year in terms of new wind generating capability
in the U.S.  According to AWEA, over 2,000 MW of new wind power capacity is
likely to be added during the coming year, or enough to power more than
540,000 homes. The most recent extension of the federal wind energy
production tax credit (PTC) by Congress in October, 2004, teed up 2005 for
an impressive growth spurt, which will bring economic development activity
in rural areas, more diversity to the nation's generating mix to reduce
fuel price volatility, and clear environmental benefits to a nation that
continues to demand new electricity sources.

AWEA executive director Randall Swisher said the association will continue
to push for a multi-year extension of the existing PTC.  Under current law,
the credit will expire at the end of 2005, which could becalm the industry
yet again.  "The short-term duration of the federal production tax credit
(PTC) and its repeated expirations -- three in the past six years -- are
keeping this industry from reaching its potential to supply the nation with
clean, domestic electricity," he said.

Highlights of the current wind energy market outlook, according to AWEA,
include:

Ø       Wind farms already in place and those that will be installed by the
end of 2005 could save over half a billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas
per day in 2006.  Using conservative growth estimates of 3,000 MW installed
every two years for the next four years, the U.S. could top 15,000 MW of
installed wind power capacity by the end of 2009, which would save nearly
0.9 Bcf/day by the end of this decade.  Natural gas shortages and price
volatility have become an increasingly familiar part of the national energy
scene over the past few years.

Ø       In 2004, seven states plus the District of Columbia passed
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) legislation requiring utilities to
provide a certain minimum amount of power from renewable sources such as
wind and solar, bringing the total to eighteen states and the
District.  The citizens of Colorado made it the first state to pass an RPS
by popular referendum, endorsing a measure under which Colorado's top
utilities must obtain 10% of the state's power needs from renewables by 2015.

Ø       Wind power continues to attract global power companies.  In
September, international power plant developer AES Corp. announced its
first step into the U.S. wind market, an equity investment in US Wind
Force.  AES also announced on January 11 that it plans to follow that
investment up with the purchase of SeaWest Holdings, a large West-coast
wind project developer.  The main reason cited for the SeaWest deal was
that the company sees strong potential in wind as a new and expanding
source of electricity.  Global power generation giant Siemens announced in
October that it would purchase wind turbine manufacturer Bonus Energy
A/S.  The company said it decided to become a wind turbine manufacturer to
merge Bonus's well-regarded technology with Siemens' experience with
large-scale utility projects.

Ø       More than 500 utilities in 34 states now offer green pricing
programs, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and
over 1,500 MW of wind power are currently serving the green power market
(generating electricity equivalent to the needs of 400,000 homes).

Ø       Project announcements for 2005 are rolling in.  Four of the top
five largest projects announced for construction this year are 200 MW or
larger, including the 240-MW Flat Rock Phase I project in New York, the
220-MW Wild Horse project in Washington, the 200-MW Forward Wind Power
project in Wisconsin, and the 200-MW Fenton project in Minnesota.

A state-by-state listing of existing and proposed wind energy projects is
available on AWEA's Web site at http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html .



________________________________________________________________________________\
______

AWEA, formed in 1974, is the national trade association of the U.S. wind
energy industry.  The association's membership includes turbine
manufacturers, wind project developers, utilities, academicians, and
interested individuals.  More information on wind energy is available at
the AWEA web site:  www.awea.org .


Christine Real de Azua
Assistant Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association
Direct phone: (202) 383-2508
Fax: (202) 383-2505
Email: Christine@...
Web: www.awea.org



==========================================================
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE ACT LIST.
----------------------------------------------------------
. Please feel free to send your input to:
    awea-act@yahoogroups.com
.. To view previous messages from the list,
    subscribe to a daily digest of the list,
    or stop receiving the list by e-mail
    (and read it on the Web), go to
    http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/awea-act .
. This e-mail discussion list is managed by
    the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA):
    http://www.awea.org .
----------------------------------------------------------

WEA):
    http://www.awea.org .
----------------------------------------------------------


Yahoo! Groups Links

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm

Alarm at new climate warning
By Richard Black
BBC environment correspondent


*Temperatures around the world could rise by as much as 11C, according
to one of the largest climate prediction projects ever run. *

This figure is twice the level that previous studies have suggested.

The scientists behind the project, called climateprediction.net, say it
shows there is no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide.

The results of the study, which used PCs around the world to produce
data, are published in the journal Nature.

Climateprediction.net is run from Oxford University, and is a
distributed computing project; rather than using a supercomputer to run
climate models, people can download software to their own PCs, which run
the programs during downtime.

More than 95,000 people have registered, from more than 150 countries;
their PCs have between them run more than 60,000 simulations of future
climate.

Each PC runs a slightly different computer simulation examining what
happens to the global climate if levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere double from pre-industrial levels - which may happen by the
middle of the century.

What vary most between the simulations are the precise nature of
physical processes like the extent of convection within tropical clouds
- a process which drives the transport of heat around the world.

* Lowest rise *

So no two simulations will produce exactly the same results; overall,
the project produces a picture of the possible range of outcomes given
the present state of scientific knowledge.

The lowest rise which climateprediction.net finds possible is 2C,
ranging up to 11C.

The timescale would depend on how quickly the doubling of CO2 was
reached, but large rises would be on a scale of a century at least from
now.

"I think these results suggest that our need to do something about
climate change is perhaps even more urgent," the climateprediction.net
chief scientist David Stainforth told BBC News.

"However, with our current state of knowledge, we can't yet define a
safe level in the atmosphere."

On Monday, the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by the
British MP Stephen Byers, claimed it had shown that a carbon dioxide
concentration of over 400 ppm (parts per million) would be 'dangerous'.

The current concentration is around 378 ppm, rising at roughly 2ppm per
year.

* Dangerous warming *

Next week the UK Meteorological Office hosts an international
conference, Stabilisation 2005, announced by Tony Blair late last year.

Its aim is to discuss what the term "dangerous" global warming really
means, and to look at ways to stabilise greenhouse gas levels.

Myles Allen, the principal investigator of climateprediction.net, said
the focus on stabilisation might not be appropriate.

"Stabilisation as an exclusive target may not be adequate," he told BBC
News.

"Stephen Byers claims to know that 400 ppm is the maximum 'safe' level;
what we show is that it may be impossible to pin down a safe level, and
therefore we should not focus exclusively on stabilisation."

Distributed computing has been used before, notably by the Search for
Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence or Seti, where several million people
have downloaded software enabling them to analyse data from observations
of distant galaxies for signs of alien life.

The scientists behind climateprediction.net believe their project,
because it is distributed to individual PCs, can help inform people
about climate change - and that, in turn could bring political change.

"It's very difficult to get politicians to collaborate, not only across
the globe but also over sustained lengths of time," Bob Spicer from the
Earth Sciences Department at the Open University, told BBC News.

"The people who can hold politicians to account are the public; and with
this project we are bringing cutting-edge science to the stakeholders,
the public."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm

Published: 2005/01/26 19:14:14 GMT

© BBC MMV

From: Adam Whaley <Jan@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:31:55 +0000
Subject: Re: CO2 scams (Modified by Jan Steinman)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm

Alarm at new climate warning
By Richard Black
BBC environment correspondent


*Temperatures around the world could rise by as much as 11C, according
to one of the largest climate prediction projects ever run. *

This figure is twice the level that previous studies have suggested.

The scientists behind the project, called climateprediction.net, say it
shows there is no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide.

The results of the study, which used PCs around the world to produce
data, are published in the journal Nature.

Climateprediction.net is run from Oxford University, and is a
distributed computing project; rather than using a supercomputer to run
climate models, people can download software to their own PCs, which run
the programs during downtime.

More than 95,000 people have registered, from more than 150 countries;
their PCs have between them run more than 60,000 simulations of future
climate.

Each PC runs a slightly different computer simulation examining what
happens to the global climate if levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere double from pre-industrial levels - which may happen by the
middle of the century.

What vary most between the simulations are the precise nature of
physical processes like the extent of convection within tropical clouds
- a process which drives the transport of heat around the world.

* Lowest rise *

So no two simulations will produce exactly the same results; overall,
the project produces a picture of the possible range of outcomes given
the present state of scientific knowledge.

The lowest rise which climateprediction.net finds possible is 2C,
ranging up to 11C.

The timescale would depend on how quickly the doubling of CO2 was
reached, but large rises would be on a scale of a century at least from
now.

"I think these results suggest that our need to do something about
climate change is perhaps even more urgent," the climateprediction.net
chief scientist David Stainforth told BBC News.

"However, with our current state of knowledge, we can't yet define a
safe level in the atmosphere."

On Monday, the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by the
British MP Stephen Byers, claimed it had shown that a carbon dioxide
concentration of over 400 ppm (parts per million) would be 'dangerous'.

The current concentration is around 378 ppm, rising at roughly 2ppm per
year.

* Dangerous warming *

Next week the UK Meteorological Office hosts an international
conference, Stabilisation 2005, announced by Tony Blair late last year.

Its aim is to discuss what the term "dangerous" global warming really
means, and to look at ways to stabilise greenhouse gas levels.

Myles Allen, the principal investigator of climateprediction.net, said
the focus on stabilisation might not be appropriate.

"Stabilisation as an exclusive target may not be adequate," he told BBC
News.

"Stephen Byers claims to know that 400 ppm is the maximum 'safe' level;
what we show is that it may be impossible to pin down a safe level, and
therefore we should not focus exclusively on stabilisation."

Distributed computing has been used before, notably by the Search for
Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence or Seti, where several million people
have downloaded software enabling them to analyse data from observations
of distant galaxies for signs of alien life.

The scientists behind climateprediction.net believe their project,
because it is distributed to individual PCs, can help inform people
about climate change - and that, in turn could bring political change.

"It's very difficult to get politicians to collaborate, not only across
the globe but also over sustained lengths of time," Bob Spicer from the
Earth Sciences Department at the Open University, told BBC News.

"The people who can hold politicians to account are the public; and with
this project we are bringing cutting-edge science to the stakeholders,
the public."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm

Published: 2005/01/26 19:14:14 GMT

© BBC MMV

Whoops, sorry, my apologies--sent this to several lists and neglected
to remove the one from whence it came.

I hope to download the software described and get it running this
evening.

Tom

At 04:25 PM 1/27/2005, Tom Gray wrote:

>From: Adam Whaley <Jan@...>
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:31:55 +0000
>Subject: Re: CO2 scams (Modified by Jan Steinman)
>
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm
>
>Alarm at new climate warning
>By Richard Black
>BBC environment correspondent
>
>
>*Temperatures around the world could rise by as much as 11C, according
>to one of the largest climate prediction projects ever run. *
>
>This figure is twice the level that previous studies have suggested.
>
>The scientists behind the project, called climateprediction.net, say it
>shows there is no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide.
>
>The results of the study, which used PCs around the world to produce
>data, are published in the journal Nature.
>
>Climateprediction.net is run from Oxford University, and is a
>distributed computing project; rather than using a supercomputer to run
>climate models, people can download software to their own PCs, which run
>the programs during downtime.
>
>More than 95,000 people have registered, from more than 150 countries;
>their PCs have between them run more than 60,000 simulations of future
>climate.
>
>Each PC runs a slightly different computer simulation examining what
>happens to the global climate if levels of carbon dioxide in the
>atmosphere double from pre-industrial levels - which may happen by the
>middle of the century.
>
>What vary most between the simulations are the precise nature of
>physical processes like the extent of convection within tropical clouds
>- a process which drives the transport of heat around the world.
>
>* Lowest rise *
>
>So no two simulations will produce exactly the same results; overall,
>the project produces a picture of the possible range of outcomes given
>the present state of scientific knowledge.
>
>The lowest rise which climateprediction.net finds possible is 2C,
>ranging up to 11C.
>
>The timescale would depend on how quickly the doubling of CO2 was
>reached, but large rises would be on a scale of a century at least from
>now.
>
>"I think these results suggest that our need to do something about
>climate change is perhaps even more urgent," the climateprediction.net
>chief scientist David Stainforth told BBC News.
>
>"However, with our current state of knowledge, we can't yet define a
>safe level in the atmosphere."
>
>On Monday, the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by the
>British MP Stephen Byers, claimed it had shown that a carbon dioxide
>concentration of over 400 ppm (parts per million) would be 'dangerous'.
>
>The current concentration is around 378 ppm, rising at roughly 2ppm per
>year.
>
>* Dangerous warming *
>
>Next week the UK Meteorological Office hosts an international
>conference, Stabilisation 2005, announced by Tony Blair late last year.
>
>Its aim is to discuss what the term "dangerous" global warming really
>means, and to look at ways to stabilise greenhouse gas levels.
>
>Myles Allen, the principal investigator of climateprediction.net, said
>the focus on stabilisation might not be appropriate.
>
>"Stabilisation as an exclusive target may not be adequate," he told BBC
>News.
>
>"Stephen Byers claims to know that 400 ppm is the maximum 'safe' level;
>what we show is that it may be impossible to pin down a safe level, and
>therefore we should not focus exclusively on stabilisation."
>
>Distributed computing has been used before, notably by the Search for
>Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence or Seti, where several million people
>have downloaded software enabling them to analyse data from observations
>of distant galaxies for signs of alien life.
>
>The scientists behind climateprediction.net believe their project,
>because it is distributed to individual PCs, can help inform people
>about climate change - and that, in turn could bring political change.
>
>"It's very difficult to get politicians to collaborate, not only across
>the globe but also over sustained lengths of time," Bob Spicer from the
>Earth Sciences Department at the Open University, told BBC News.
>
>"The people who can hold politicians to account are the public; and with
>this project we are bringing cutting-edge science to the stakeholders,
>the public."
>
>Story from BBC NEWS:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm
>
>Published: 2005/01/26 19:14:14 GMT
>
>© BBC MMV
>
>
>
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Alternate Energy Resource Network
>http://www.alternate-energy.net
>Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
>Alternative Energy Politics
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

...Why were no crops domesticated anywhere before the end of the last ice age?
The people of 20,000 years ago were just as smart as those of 10,000 years
ago; not all of them were glutted with game, and the ice did not hold sway in
lower latitudes.
One possible answer to this question is a worry to us now. By studying ancient
ice cores, which, like tree rings, leave a yearly record, climatologists have
been able to track the average global temperature over a quarter million
years. These studies show that the world's climate has been unusually stable
for the past 10,000 years--- exactly the lifetime of agriculture and
civilization. It seems we couldn't have developed farming earlier, even if
we'd tried. The studies also show that the earth's climate has sometimes
fluctuated wildly, breaking from an ice age or plunging into one not over
centuries but in decades.
     The natural triggers of such events are not well understood. Some sort of
chain reaction may provoke the rapid upsets perhaps a sudden reversal of
oceanic currents, or a release of methane from thawing permafrost. In his
book on the glacial core studies, Richard Alley points out what should be
obvious: "humans have built a civilization adapted to the climate we have.
Increasingly, humanity is using everything this climate provides...[and]
the climate of the last few thousand years is about as good as it gets."
      Change is not in our interest. Our only rational policy is not to risk
provoking it. Yet we face abundant evidence that civilization itself,
through fossil-fuel emissions and other disturbances, is upsetting the
long calm in which it grew. Ice sheets at both poles are breaking up.
Glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas are thawing; some have disappeared in
only twenty-five years. Droughts and unusually hot weather have already
caused world grain output to fall or stagnate for eight years in a row.
During the same eight years, the number of mouths to feed went up by 600
million.
      Steady warming will be bad enough, but the worst outcome would be a
sudden overturning of earth's climatic balance -back to its old regime of
sweats and chills. If that happens, crops will fail everywhere and the
great experiment of civilization will come to a catastrophic end. In the
matter of our food, we have grown as specialized, and therefore as
vulnerable, as a sabre- toothed cat.

from: A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright

>>
>>Alarm at new climate warning
>>By Richard Black
>>BBC environment correspondent
>>
>>
>>*Temperatures around the world could rise by as much as 11C, according
>>to one of the largest climate prediction projects ever run. *
>>
>>This figure is twice the level that previous studies have suggested.
>>
>>The scientists behind the project, called climateprediction.net, say it
>>shows there is no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide.
>>
>>The results of the study, which used PCs around the world to produce
>>data, are published in the journal Nature.
>>
>>Climateprediction.net is run from Oxford University, and is a
>>distributed computing project; rather than using a supercomputer to run
>>climate models, people can download software to their own PCs, which run
>>the programs during downtime.
>>
>>More than 95,000 people have registered, from more than 150 countries;
>>their PCs have between them run more than 60,000 simulations of future
>>climate.
>>
>>Each PC runs a slightly different computer simulation examining what
>>happens to the global climate if levels of carbon dioxide in the
>>atmosphere double from pre-industrial levels - which may happen by the
>>middle of the century.
>>
>>What vary most between the simulations are the precise nature of
>>physical processes like the extent of convection within tropical clouds
>>- a process which drives the transport of heat around the world.
>>
>>* Lowest rise *
>>
>>So no two simulations will produce exactly the same results; overall,
>>the project produces a picture of the possible range of outcomes given
>>the present state of scientific knowledge.
>>
>>The lowest rise which climateprediction.net finds possible is 2C,
>>ranging up to 11C.
>>
>>The timescale would depend on how quickly the doubling of CO2 was
>>reached, but large rises would be on a scale of a century at least from
>>now.
>>
>>"I think these results suggest that our need to do something about
>>climate change is perhaps even more urgent," the climateprediction.net
>>chief scientist David Stainforth told BBC News.
>>
>>"However, with our current state of knowledge, we can't yet define a
>>safe level in the atmosphere."
>>
>>On Monday, the International Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by the
>>British MP Stephen Byers, claimed it had shown that a carbon dioxide
>>concentration of over 400 ppm (parts per million) would be 'dangerous'.
>>
>>The current concentration is around 378 ppm, rising at roughly 2ppm per
>>year.
>>
>>* Dangerous warming *
>>
>>Next week the UK Meteorological Office hosts an international
>>conference, Stabilisation 2005, announced by Tony Blair late last year.
>>
>>Its aim is to discuss what the term "dangerous" global warming really
>>means, and to look at ways to stabilise greenhouse gas levels.
>>
>>Myles Allen, the principal investigator of climateprediction.net, said
>>the focus on stabilisation might not be appropriate.
>>
>>"Stabilisation as an exclusive target may not be adequate," he told BBC
>>News.
>>
>>"Stephen Byers claims to know that 400 ppm is the maximum 'safe' level;
>>what we show is that it may be impossible to pin down a safe level, and
>>therefore we should not focus exclusively on stabilisation."
>>
>>Distributed computing has been used before, notably by the Search for
>>Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence or Seti, where several million people
>>have downloaded software enabling them to analyse data from observations
>>of distant galaxies for signs of alien life.
>>
>>The scientists behind climateprediction.net believe their project,
>>because it is distributed to individual PCs, can help inform people
>>about climate change - and that, in turn could bring political change.
>>
>>"It's very difficult to get politicians to collaborate, not only across
>>the globe but also over sustained lengths of time," Bob Spicer from the
>>Earth Sciences Department at the Open University, told BBC News.
>>
>>"The people who can hold politicians to account are the public; and with
>>this project we are bringing cutting-edge science to the stakeholders,
>>the public."
>>
>>Story from BBC NEWS:
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm
>>
>>Published: 2005/01/26 19:14:14 GMT
>>
>>© BBC MMV

Yes, the chances are very good that this temperature rise will happen, it's
certainly happened before. However,the real problem is that those North
American city-folk most responsible for the pollution and greenhouse gasses
causing the change won't read this article, or understand what it says about
their wasteful lifestyle.
MJ
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm
>
> Alarm at new climate warning
> By Richard Black
> BBC environment correspondent
>
>
> *Temperatures around the world could rise by as much as 11C, according
> to one of the largest climate prediction projects ever run. *
>
> This figure is twice the level that previous studies have suggested.
>

>    From: Tom Gray <tomgray@...>
>
> Whoops, sorry, my apologies--sent this to several lists and neglected
> to remove the one from whence it came.

Glad it was you, Tom! At first, I was embarrassed and confused at how I
must have posted it twice! :-)

The fascinating thing is that this could be real bad. MJ seems to think
ordinary people can't get behind CO2 as an issue, that it's too
abstract for Joe Six Pack. And yet the Montreal Protocol managed to
rein in ozone depleting gasses, which surely had little "Joe Six Pack
appeal."

The big issue is that CO2 is directly and intimately related to gross
fossil fuel usage. There were alternatives to chloroflorocarbons; there
are no credible alternatives to fossil fuel at today's consumption
rates.

:::: Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum
tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000
vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March
1949
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Item/99AP35>

How would YOU convince Homer Simpson to use less fossil fuel?

>  the Montreal Protocol managed to
> rein in ozone depleting gasses, which surely had little "Joe Six Pack
> appeal."
> :::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Item/99AP35>
>
That's because the MP regulations forced manufacturers and tradesmen to stop
using ODGs, and the regs were enforced.   That model might not work with fosil
fuel.
MJ

Simple economics, make the cost of fossil fuel higher than alternative fuels.

I would like to know how much electricity from the power company really costs
without the subsidies.

Arthur
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: MJ
   Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:51 PM
   Subject: [tomorrow-energy] Homer factors


   How would YOU convince Homer Simpson to use less fossil fuel?




   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Alternate Energy Resource Network
   http://www.alternate-energy.net
   Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
   Alternative Energy Politics
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     tomorrow-energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> Simple economics, make the cost of fossil fuel higher than alternative fuels.

I agree; and how would you accomplish this price increase rapidly enough to
get his attention?  Gasoline here is over $3 per gallon and it's still
business as usual because the price increases have been gradual enough that
everything adjusts and nobody notices any real change.  For example even with
expensive gasoline, people still leave their vehicles idling while they go
into the store.

>
> I would like to know how much electricity from the power company really costs
> without the subsidies.
>
> Arthur

I beleive they are a public utility and have to report that disaggregation to
the consumer.

MJ



>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: MJ
>   Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:51 PM
>   Subject: [tomorrow-energy] Homer factors
>
>
>   How would YOU convince Homer Simpson to use less fossil fuel?
>
>
>
>
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   Alternate Energy Resource Network
>   http://www.alternate-energy.net
>   Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
>   Alternative Energy Politics
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     tomorrow-energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Alternate Energy Resource Network
> http://www.alternate-energy.net
> Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
> Alternative Energy Politics
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good Day All,

Don't spend too much time worrying about "Homer".  We don't have the
production capacity to supply clean and efficient systems in volume.  Look
at the Toyota Prius.  Several years ago people would buy a Prius as a
political statement.  Sales were barely adequate to justify production.
Most likely Toyota lost money establishing a leadership position in the
market.  Now there are waiting lists to buy the Prius.

For this reason we target early adopters.  They are willing to pay high
prices to be the first.  This allows us to recover the costs of product
development and manufacturing startup.  The same thing is just beginning to
happen in solar panels.  Our costs are very high and our prices are high as
well.

If you think of the market evolution from horses to automobiles, history
books describe cars as being expensive and unreliable.  Early articles in
magazines said that while automobiles had problems, at least automobiles
didn't defecate in the streets.  No one was so stupid as to claim that
automobiles would solve all of our problems.  Automobiles were just another
step forward.

For around $275,000.00 we will custom build you a complete solar powered
hydrogen fueling station, and you can have a seat on our advisory board.  We
can't sell stock at this time because of the various legal papers that will
need to be filed first.  You will need to either lease a hydrogen fuel cell
automobile or have someone like Quantum Technologies convert a vehicle from
gasoline to hydrogen for you.  We will want to service the system for you on
a monthly basis and have the right to install improvements and use your
system as a demonstration unit to show other people and agencies how nicely
the system works.  We are already discussing revisions to building codes,
such as the need to install a ventilation system to safely disperse the
hydrogen in the event of an accidental leak.  Since hydrogen goes up rather
than forming layers on the ground this should be much safer than parking a
gasoline powered vehicle in the garage.

I would also like to warn you that we expect to be able to reduce the cost
of these systems drastically and to stretch the service intervals.  I would
guess that few of you have a Prius and that most of you will wait, like
Homer, until everybody else has one first.  Oh well, I guess there is a
little Homer in most of us.

Regards,
Chuck Nolan
President
Modular Energy Solutions -
Tomorrow's energy today
182 N. Taaffe St
Sunnyvale, CA 94086-4919
United States
T: 408-733-8749
F: 408-733-8779
E: chucknln@...

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Arthur Hammeke [mailto:hammekea@...]
   Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:27 PM
   To: tomorrow-energy@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: Re: [tomorrow-energy] Homer factors


   Simple economics, make the cost of fossil fuel higher than alternative
fuels.

   I would like to know how much electricity from the power company really
costs without the subsidies.

   Arthur
     ----- Original Message -----
     From: MJ
     Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:51 PM
     Subject: [tomorrow-energy] Homer factors


     How would YOU convince Homer Simpson to use less fossil fuel?




     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Alternate Energy Resource Network
     http://www.alternate-energy.net
     Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
     Alternative Energy Politics
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
     Yahoo! Groups Links

       a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/

       b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
       tomorrow-energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

       c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.



   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Alternate Energy Resource Network
   http://www.alternate-energy.net
   Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
   Alternative Energy Politics
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     tomorrow-energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>    From: "MJ" <mike211@...>
>
> Gasoline here is over $3 per gallon and it's still
> business as usual because the price increases have been gradual enough
> that
> everything adjusts and nobody notices any real change...

Ah yes, I can smell them frogs a boilin'!

:::: The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined
nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood. -
Martin Luther King Jr.
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Item/793932>

...and exactly the same thing is happening where you live, it's just a few
rungs down the price ladder.

I notice you have no answers for convincing Homer Simpson to use less fossil
fuel.

MJ

>> Gasoline here is over $3 per gallon and it's still
>> business as usual because the price increases have been gradual enough
>> that
>> everything adjusts and nobody notices any real change...
>
> Ah yes, I can smell them frogs a boilin'!
> :::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Item/793932>
>

Now, now. I've been handing out crystal belly-button replacements for
decades. No patent, but prior use; so I want my cut...

Craig Close
Balimer, Merlan
OK: Far West Catonsville
ALL RIGHT: Greater Oella
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Nolan [mailto:chucknln@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:51 AM
To: tomorrow-energy@yahoogroups.com
Cc: renweableenergy2; energy2004; AlternativesInEnergy; Leigh Peck; Arun P.
Patel; Clyde Stanley; David Coale; Fred Zeise; Gary R. Fabrizio; Krassimer
G. Grouev; Mat Thompson; Steve Anderes; Steve Koelzer
Subject: RE: [tomorrow-energy] CO2 scams


Good Day MJ,

I must first admit that I am culturally deprived or is it depraved?  Watch
out for us stressed out Americans.  I just don't spend that many hours
watching television, which in many ways might be considered intellectual
pollution.  This email is dedicated to the memory of Johnny Carson, a man
who made this place a little more tolerable.

Since alternative energy provides very few jobs, I am presently working
selling HVAC to old Homer.  Imagine my frustration, when Homer decides to
keep his old rusting furnace, which wastes half of the energy it burns.
Most people pass over the Energy Star models, and buy a 80% AFUE model, when
the old furnace dies.  Natural gas went up 20% in the last twelve months.  A
93% AFUE furnace costs around $1200 more, installed.  The typical gas bill
runs around $90.00 in the winter for heating in the temperate coastal
regions.  This works out to an average of $350.00 a year.  The Energy Star
(93% AFUE) furnace saves about $56.88 a year in gas over the standard (80%
AFUE).  By the second year the annual savings would be $68.26.  The third
year annual savings would be $81.91.  The fourth year annual savings would
be $98.29.

On the other hand, replacing the 40% AFUE with the 80% AFUE furnace has a
reasonable return on investment.

When the old furnace finally rusts through its heat exchanger, the old
furnace begins to add carbon monoxide to the recirculated air.  At first
this poison causes head aches and brain damage, but eventually we see the
Darwin effect.  Through his gross stupidity, Homer has removed himself from
the gene pool, when the carbon monoxide kills him.

Now what is the depletion rate of natural gas?  There is no consensus.
Natural gas tends to deplete at a faster rate than oil, where steam
injection can bring heavy oil to the surface after the lighter crude has
been pumped out.  Already we are seeing natural gas being shipped around the
world in tankers as local sources are running out.  Yet, we are building new
power plants in California that will increase the demand for natural gas.
John Gotthold, president of the local American Hydrogen Association, has
presented data at our monthly meetings, which seems to support the theory
that demand will exceed supply in the year 2007.

Now, there is hope!  In the past natural gas has increased in price by
single digits.  This year we will see double digits.  Maybe next year or by
2007 we will see triple digits.

It gets better.  Most homes now have some attic insulation, but walls and
floors are rarely insulated in older homes.  Duct work is rarely upgraded or
even maintained.  Imagine the pollution that comes from the wasted energy,
leaking from ducts, that heats the crawl spaces or the attics.  The animal
rights terrorists should be happy, since rats, living crawl spaces with
damaged vent screens, enjoy the warmth.  Last year I had a Lady Homer, who
was spending $800.00 a month on energy for a 4000 square foot home, but
refused to consider high efficiency equipment and insulated ducts, but
instead went with the "lowest bidder" to replace her aging equipment.

The real problem is that Homer has Rectal Myopia.  Why don't you and I form
a startup company to manufacture glass abdominal windows, so that Homer can
regain his vision?  No wonder the guy has a shitty out look on life!

Silly in Sunnyvale (I loved the ending of Sleepless in Seattle),
Chuck
   -----Original Message-----
   From: MJ [mailto:mike211@...]
   Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:30 PM
   To: tomorrow-energy@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: RE: [tomorrow-energy] CO2 scams


   Chuck,

   The problem is that focussing on CO2 ignores the real problem -- air
pollution.
   Most Americans understand that smog kills, all this fooferaw over CO2 just
   confuses tham.  Of course all those beating the CO2 drum are against
pollution
   too.  But they've missed the point that most Americans don't know or care
what
   they're ranting about. Ask most Americans and you'll get this response:
   "Greenhouse gasses?  I don't own a greenhouse, it's not my problem."
   You guys do a great job preaching to the converted, but your message is
not
   getting thru to Homer Simpson.  Focus on stopping smog, that's something
most
   Americans can understand.

   MJ

   >
   > Good Day MJ,
   >
   > I understand your frustration, and agree with your concern over the
general
   > disregard for pollution by many people.  The big question is do you want
to
   > bring about change or just vent your rage at a system that seems to
ignore
   > you.  I would guess that if I was to confront you and try to physically
push
   > you that you would do your best to knock me back on my ass.  I would
   > probably do the same, if someone was to push me.
   >
   > Here in California most cities provide roadside recycling, where on
garbage
   > day, the recyclables are picked up and taken to a centralized recycling
   > center.  Just a few years ago, most recyclables went to the landfill.
Years
   > ago tetraethyl lead was added to gasoline, which caused lead
particulates to
   > poison the land alongside of freeways.  Today, we use lead free
gasoline.
   > Today, solar panels are in short supply and wind power was advertised on
the
   > Olympic Games.  These positive changes were brought about by polite
people,
   > who presented convincing arguments.
   >
   > The same scientists who are worried about CO2 are worried about acid
rain,
   > resource depletion, carcinogenic particulates, and other forms of
pollution.
   > You might find that these same people, who you attack with such venom,
could
   > be your strongest supporters.
   >
   > People want to be shown a better future by leaders, not insulted by
angry
   > protestors.  Your heart is in the right place, and I think a man as
smart
   > and concerned as you can make great contributions.  We need people to
focus
   > their passion on making positive changes, to help lead us all to a
better
   > future.
   >
   > I look forward to seeing positive solutions to some of these problems.
   >
   > Best Wishes Brother,
   > Chuck Nolan
   > President
   > Modular Energy Solutions -
   > Tomorrow's energy today
   > 182 N. Taaffe St
   > Sunnyvale, CA 94086-4919
   > United States
   > T: 408-733-8749
   > F: 408-733-8779
   > E: chucknln@...
   >   -----Original Message-----
   >   From: MJ [mailto:mike211@...]
   >   Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:46 PM
   >   Subject: [tomorrow-energy] CO2 scams
   >
   >
   >
   >   CO2 isn't pollution, it's a scam. Pollution is the stuff that makes
you
   > sick.
   >   CO2 concentrations would have to be 1000 times the concentration in
the
   >   atmosphere before it ever even started to be a toxic problem.  Nobody
is
   >   dieing from CO2 poisoning.  Tens of thousands are dieing from
   > urban-industrial
   >   pollution, and the problem has been around since the end of ww2.  CO2
and
   >   global warming are just the latest in a long line of excuses that city
   >   inhabitants have used to avoid coming to grips with the basic fact
that
   > smog
   >   kills.  City people are shitting in their nest, then rolling in it and
   > blaming
   >   the smell on their neighbor's farts.  There is no point taking any of
this
   > CO2
   >   scam seriously until there is meaningful efforts on the part of cities
to
   > stop
   >   smog.  It's very easy to do and there is no excuse to keep putting it
off
   >   while more and more people die from it.
   >
   >   CO2 is Carbon Dioxide it's not smog and it won't kill you or even make
you
   >   sick in the concentrations found in the atmosphere. SMOG is the mix of
   > toxic
   >   air pollutants that kill.  CO2 is a big red herring.
   >
   >   The industrial revolution has been the central cause for the increase
in
   >   pollutants in the atmosphere over the last three centuries. Before
1950,
   > the
   >   majority of this pollution was created from the burning of coal for
energy
   >   generation, space heating, cooking, and transportation. Under the
right
   >   conditions, the smoke and sulfur dioxide produced from the burning of
coal
   > can
   >   combine with fog to create industrial smog. In high concentrations,
   > industrial
   >   smog can be extremely toxic to humans and other living organisms.
London
   > is
   >   world famous for its episodes of industrial smog. The most famous
London
   > smog
   >   event occurred in December, 1952 when five days of calm foggy weather
   > created
   >   a toxic atmosphere that claimed about 4000 human lives. Today, the use
of
   >   other fossil fuels, nuclear power, and hydroelectricity instead of
coal
   > has
   >   greatly reduced the occurrence of industrial smog. However, the
burning of
   >   fossil fuels like gasoline can create another atmospheric pollution
   > problem
   >   known as photochemical smog. Photochemical smog is a condition that
   > develops
   >   when primary pollutants (oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic
compounds
   >   created from fossil fuel combustion) interact under the influence of
   > sunlight
   >   to produce a mixture of hundreds of different and hazardous chemicals
   > known as
   >   secondary pollutants. The Table below [see URL] describes the major
toxic
   >   constituents of photochemical smog and their effects on the
environment.
   >   Development of photochemical smog is typically associated with
specific
   >   climatic conditions and centers of high population density. Cities
like
   > Los
   >   Angeles, New York, Sydney, and Vancouver frequently suffer episodes of
   >   photochemical smog. In recent years, scientists have also noticed that
   > smaller
   >   communities can develop similar pollution problems if conditions are
   > right.
   >
   >   more:
   >   http://royal.okanagan.bc.ca/mpidwirn/atmosphereandclimate/smog.html
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   >   Alternate Energy Resource Network
   >   http://www.alternate-energy.net
   >   Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
   >   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
   >   Alternative Energy Politics
   >   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
   >   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   >
   >
   >
   >


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   > --
   >   Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
   >     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/
   >
   >     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >     tomorrow-energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   >
   >     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   > Alternate Energy Resource Network
   > http://www.alternate-energy.net
   > Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
   > Alternative Energy Politics
   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
   > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   >
   > Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >





   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Alternate Energy Resource Network
   http://www.alternate-energy.net
   Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
   Alternative Energy Politics
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     tomorrow-energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alternate Energy Resource Network
http://www.alternate-energy.net
Visit our new groups Next Generation Grid
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
Alternative Energy Politics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yahoo! Groups Links

Good Day MJ,

Ignorance we can cure, but stupid is forever.  With regard to Homer, pray
for carbon monoxide, and wait for the Darwin effect.  Stalin and Hitler
tried using force.  You can't save people from themselves, but a small
number will get on the ark and be saved.

Regards,
Chuck
   -----Original Message-----
   From: MJ [mailto:mike211@...]
   Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 5:39 PM
   To: tomorrow-energy@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: Re: [tomorrow-energy] Re: Homer factors


   ...and exactly the same thing is happening where you live, it's just a few
   rungs down the price ladder.

   I notice you have no answers for convincing Homer Simpson to use less
fossil
   fuel.

   MJ

   >> Gasoline here is over $3 per gallon and it's still
   >> business as usual because the price increases have been gradual enough
   >> that
   >> everything adjusts and nobody notices any real change...
   >
   > Ah yes, I can smell them frogs a boilin'!
   > :::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Item/793932>
   >


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Using less is actually quite easy.   However the first step is so difficult
that most people never try.  That first step is to become aware of how much is
used per month and where it goes.  Start by looking at the past year.
How much fuel do the vehicles use?
How much electricity and fuel does the home use?
Where does that energy go and why it's more in some months than others?
Are the vehicles and appliances using energy efficiently and burning fuel
cleanly?
How much garbage is generated each week?
How much of that garbage actually needed to be purchased in the first place,
especially plastics?
How much of the garbage could be recycled?

It's easy to mindlessly buy more, using less requires thinking about it, and
for some that's an insurmountable opportunity.

MJ

>    From: "MJ" <mike211@...>
>
> ...and exactly the same thing is happening where you live...

I wouldn't know. I don't use petroleum -- at least not directly. (Well,
I should admit that I've used about 13 gallons of diesel this year when
it got cold and the biodiesel gelled.)

> I notice you have no answers for convincing Homer Simpson to use less
> fossil
> fuel.

Sorry, I thought I mentioned my solution (which ain't gonna happen, but
it's my theory and I'm stickin' to it!) TAX THE HELL OUT OF ENERGY!

We're paying prices for energy based on present supply and demand, as
though it will go on forever. Oil companies get a "depletion allowance"
as oil gets harder to extract and more expensive. The same thing in
reverse should be happening to taxes. We should be paying  energy taxes
based upon the future cost of energy, which would then open the doors
for more sustainable (but also more expensive) technologies.

You probably don't like my solution, and heaven knows it ain't gonna
happen, but I say tax energy so high it throws the country into deep
recession. Give people a taste of the future, like they got in the
70's, and then forgot.

:::: If vegetarians eat only vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Item/99-3033-17-18>

>
>>    From: "MJ" <mike211@...>
>>
>> ...and exactly the same thing is happening where you live...
>
> I wouldn't know. I don't use petroleum -- at least not directly. (Well,
> I should admit that I've used about 13 gallons of diesel this year when
> it got cold and the biodiesel gelled.)
>

By "where you live" I wasn't referring to your household, but rather the
community / region where you live.  I'm interested in knowing how you've
eliminated the use of all plastic from your lifestyle.  Indirect use is still
using petroleum.


>> I notice you have no answers for convincing Homer Simpson to use less
>> fossil fuel.
>
> Sorry, I thought I mentioned my solution (which ain't gonna happen, but
> it's my theory and I'm stickin' to it!) TAX THE HELL OUT OF ENERGY!

I agree with your solution, but how are you gonna make that happen?  Might as
well pray to the tooth fairy, as hope the govt will increase taxes on
petroleum.

>
> We're paying prices for energy based on present supply and demand, as
> though it will go on forever. Oil companies get a "depletion allowance"
> as oil gets harder to extract and more expensive. The same thing in
> reverse should be happening to taxes. We should be paying  energy taxes
> based upon the future cost of energy, which would then open the doors
> for more sustainable (but also more expensive) technologies.
>
> You probably don't like my solution,

Why wouldn't I like your solution?  Other than the fact that I see no way of
implementing it, it seems like a good idea to me.


  and heaven knows it ain't gonna
> happen, but I say tax energy so high it throws the country into deep
> recession. Give people a taste of the future, like they got in the
> 70's, and then forgot.

So, if it ain't gonna happen should society just keep ignoring the problem
till it's too late?  A lota folks are gonna die if that happens, but then we
don't have an underpopulation problem, so perhaps doing nothing is the best
option.
MJ

>    From: "MJ" <mike211@...>
>
>>> ...and exactly the same thing is happening where you live...
>>
>> I wouldn't know. I don't use petroleum -- at least not directly.
>
> I'm interested in knowing how you've
> eliminated the use of all plastic from your lifestyle.  Indirect use
> is still
> using petroleum.

I'm interested in why you can't read, Michael. I think you just like to
see yourself argue.

Did you see any claim of eliminating all use of petroleum? NO! If you
were a careful reader, you'd have seen the "at least not directly"
caveat right in front of your nose. And then you chide me for indirect
use.

You have a lot to contribute, but I really can't stomach your attitude.
You can't tell the difference from a potential ally and someone to pick
a fight with. You should work on that. It may be a crucial liability in
the future.

Next time someone writes something like I did, try congratulating them
instead of attacking them for something they did not even claim.

Whenever I'm tempted to come back with a cynical retort, I recall the
words of Ben Franklin: "I made it a rule to forbear all direct
contradictions to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion
of my own. I even forbade myself the use of every word or expression in
the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as ‘certainly’,
‘undoubtedly’, etc. I adopted instead of them ‘I conceive’, ‘I
apprehend’, or ‘I imagine’ a thing to be so or so; or ‘so it appears to
me at present’. When another asserted something that I thought an
error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and
of showing him immediately some absurdity in his proposition. In
answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances
his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or
seemed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this
change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more
pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured
them a readier reception and less contradiction. I had less
mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily
prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I
happened to be in the right."

:::: People should be free to speak their mind, but not to invent their
own history.
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Van>

Well I was just reacting to what appeared to be a smug "I've got mine, so
up-yours" attitude.  Perhaps I misunderstood your intent.  I don't see much
difference between direct and indirect petroleum use.  BTW what with petro
based fertilizer, harvesting, transportation and processing, what percent of
petroleum is embodied in every litre of veggie oil?

We all do what we can within the limits of the opportunities presented.  My
house is in a climate that demands better efficiency than most places in the
lower 48.  My vehicle isn't as efficient as yours, but then I don't live in a
densely populated area where vehicle efficiency is more important. I also try
to use mine as little as necessary. Reducing waste and unnecessary packaging
requires my constant diligence.
Your accomplishments are as impressive as anyone's. If everyone just tried to
use less then we wouldn't have an energy problem.
MJ

Scientific obfuscation keeps Homer Simpson confused while the problem grows.
MJ

Scientists Grapple with Climate as Crisis Grows
Reuters

Jan 31, 2005 — By Jeremy Lovell

EXETER, England (Reuters) - Scientists will step into a feud between
Washington and its allies over global warming at a British-sponsored meeting
this week.

The conference comes just days after an international report described the
climate crisis as a time bomb and a conservation group warned of disastrous
warming in the Arctic.

Scientists from 30 nations as varied as Australia, India and Japan will meet
in Exeter, England, from Feb. 1-3 to try to define what constitutes
"dangerous" levels of warming. But they will not make any recommendations to
policymakers.

"The purpose is to have a debate of the scientific facts. We will collect the
best information we have to give to the politicians … but don't expect to make
any recommendations," conference chairman Dennis Tirpak said ahead of the
meeting.

It is far short of the fanfare with which British Prime Minister Tony Blair
announced the conference last September, promising an agenda-setting meeting
for his presidency of the Group of Eight (G8) rich nations.

The Kyoto protocol, the U.N. plan for reining in emissions of greenhouse gases
from cars, factories and power plants, will enter into force on Feb. 16 with
backing from almost all rich nations except the United States.

President Bush pulled out in 2001, arguing Kyoto was too costly and wrongly
excluded poor nations.

Last week a panel of experts, the International Climate Change Taskforce,
urged Washington to join other nations in a drive to avert the "ecological
time bomb" of global warming.

On Sunday the WWF environmental group warned that catastrophic climate change
could kick in within 20 years unless greenhouse gas emissions are cut sharply.

It said entire species such as polar bears could be pushed toward extinction
this century as a result.

PURE SCIENCE

Blair's former environment minister Michael Meacher, a regular critic of the
government on green issues, regretted the lack of recommendations.

"It is a bit of a weakness. They should draw it all together and present the
politicians with best and worst case scenarios — pointing out that even under
the best case there are some pretty dire consequences. That leaves no wriggle
room," he said.

Blair returned to the attack in a speech last week at the World Economic Forum
in Switzerland.

"It may be true to say that the evidence is still disputed. It would be wrong
to say that the evidence of danger is not clearly and persuasively advocated
by a very large number of entirely independent and compelling voices," he
said.

"We must send a clear message that … we are united in moving in the direction
of greenhouse gas reductions. This isn't an issue that is going away."

Washington has rejected caps on emissions set by Kyoto.

Some scientists have said two degrees centigrade of warming is already
expected — with a major contributor being human activities like burning fossil
fuels to generate electricity which produces vast quantities of heat-trapping
carbon dioxide.

They have also warned that above two degrees the warming might start pushing
the planet into the unknown as ice caps melt, sea levels rise and weather
patterns change at accelerating rates, putting millions of people at risk.

Greenpeace chief Stephen Tindale said he did not worry that the meeting had no
political content. "If it demonstrates that the consensus spans both sides of
the Atlantic, that would remove Bush's fig leaf," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-01-28-plugged-in-hybrids_\
x.htm

Some plugging in hybrids to save even more fuel By Mark Clayton, The Christian
Scinece Monitor
Not long after Dan Kroushl got his new 2004 Toyota Prius, he began to wonder
about the mysterious button on the dash. It didn't seem to have any function.
Didn't boost the turbo or engage an ejector seat. In online discussions with
other Prius enthusiasts, Mr. Kroushl soon discovered the button did have a
hidden function: It could turn the gasoline-electric hybrid into an all-electric
car — for a mile or so on limited battery power.


This "stealth mode" button works fine in Japan and Europe where it's handy for
drivers to roll politely about densely packed subdivisions in the early morning
and late evening. But the button has been disconnected for North America's
Priuses.

Now, scores of Prius owners in the United States are activating the button on
their own — despite company warnings that altering the car will void its
warranty.

Some drivers, including Kroushl, are going even further: adding battery capacity
— and a plug. The hoped for result: a high-tech commuting car that plugs into a
socket at night and gets amazing gas mileage the next day.

In effect, these backyard mechanics have turned the hybrid car's appeal on its
head. Instead of emphasizing gasoline over electric power and the convenience of
today's cars, they're aiming to create less polluting higher-mileage vehicles
that emphasize electricity over gasoline — even if it's a bit less convenient.

"One guy I know plugs his Honda hybrid into a windmill for power," Kroushl says.
"It costs him practically nothing to drive."

Since before the Model T, electric cars have been among the most efficient modes
of transportation. They made a bit of a comeback in the mid-1990s, when General
Motors and other automakers reintroduced electric-only cars to meet a proposed
California clean-air mandate. But with the weakening of that requirement, which
called for some vehicles to be zero-emission in 2003, GM, Toyota, and Honda
stopped production of their electric vehicles. Some automakers, which had leased
the cars, began taking them back to be destroyed.

Only the dedication of enthusiasts has kept them from disappearing completely.
This past summer, after Ford Motor Co. announced it would scrap its electric
Think vehicles, environmental groups occupied the roof of the company's
Norwegian offices and held a mock funeral at a San Francisco dealer. Within two
weeks, Ford agreed instead to ship its vehicles to a Norwegian electric-car
manufacturer. Just last week, Ford also reluctantly agreed to let Dave
Bernikoff-Raboy, a California rancher, buy the all-electric pickup truck he had
been leasing. He was so devoted to the vehicle, which recharged off a solar
panel, that he camped out near a Ford dealership in Sacramento, to protest that
automaker's plans to dispose of its remaining electric fleet.

Now, a growing interest in hybrids has rekindled the hopes of the
electricity-firsters. Global demand for hybrids is estimated to rise from about
200,000 units produced annually to more than 1 million vehicles a year by 2010,
according to ABI Research, an international market-research firm, in a report
last year. If only 1% of these were converted to run primarily on electricity,
it would create a base of more than 30,000 vehicles by the end of the decade.

"We're not talking about electric vehicles, but about plug-in hybrid vehicles
that can be topped off with electricity for short trips," James Woolsey, former
director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said last month during the
unveiling of a report by the 16-member National Commission on Energy Policy.
"The potential in terms of national policy, and in terms of global warming,
ought to be focused on by anyone" concerned about terrorism or "paying over $2 a
gallon."

Other experts are also urging automakers to take a new look.

"We think the transportation fuel sector should be diversified by utilizing more
electricity as a fuel — plug-in hybrids that can get 100 miles per gallon and
allow you to run on electricity alone for 20 to 30 miles, then shift to the
combustion engine," says Gal Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of
Global Security, an energy-security think tank in Washington.

But automakers show little interest.

"Why would anyone want to do that?" wonders Sam Butto, a Toyota spokesman in
Torrance, Calif., when told some Prius owners are creating their own plug-in
Priuses. "One of the great features of the Prius is that you don't have to plug
it in."

It is also unlikely Toyota would make a plug-in Prius — though "nothing is
impossible," he hedges. The problems are many, including a "much, much, much
larger battery" needed to increase range, which would add hundreds of pounds,
says David Hermance, a Toyota environmental engineer.

How green is that plug-in?

Anyway, plug-in hybrids are not that green, Mr. Hermance argues. They run on
electricity that's often created by coal-fired power plants. So, such a car
would be only marginally better from an environmental and economic perspective
than a regular hybrid and have limited appeal, he concludes. Case closed.

While Andrew Frank concedes that an electric car powered indirectly by coal
isn't much better for the environment, he argues it is still more efficient
transportation — and it makes a world of difference from the standpoint of
energy security.

With engineering students at the University of California at Davis, Professor
Frank has spent more than a decade turning production vehicles into plug-in
hybrids using off-the-shelf parts. "We just built a high-performance plug-in
hybrid Ford Explorer," he says. "It's 325 horsepower — 200 of that horsepower is
electric and 125 is gasoline. This car goes like a rocket, but still gets double
the fuel economy of a regular hybrid. And for the first 50 miles it is all
electric — zero emissions."

That's enough for many drivers to complete their daily commute. Compared with
conventional cars, the annual fuel consumption of the modified cars "is only
about 10%, because you're using gas so infrequently," he says. "Our studies show
[that] the average person would only go to the gas station six times a year
compared with maybe 35 times a year."

Built on a stock Explorer platform, the hybrid retains all its original interior
space. There is also more space in the engine compartment because the vehicle
lacks moving parts like a fan belt, generator, water pump, and even a
transmission. Because it has fewer than one-fifth the number of moving parts of
a conventional SUV, the hybrid's weight, even with a heavier battery, stays the
same. Assembly is simpler and reliability, better. In production, it might cost
$40,000 or less, he says.

A nibble from Toyota

Despite repeated presentations to the Big Three automakers in Detroit, Frank has
received little interest from them. But last year, Toyota flew his Explorer to
its research facilities in Japan so engineers could pore over the vehicle.
"There's no question in my mind that Toyota has plans for a plug-in hybrid right
now, but they aren't talking about it," he says.

Certainly, plug-in hybrids are for real. DaimlerChrysler is reportedly near
delivery of the first batch of what is expected to be as many as 100 Sprinter
delivery vans that permit travel of up to 20 miles on electricity alone. This
will come in handy in car-clogged European cities currently considering bans or
other limits on gas- and diesel-powered delivery vehicles.

AC Propulsion had demonstrated a converted VW Jetta with a plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle (PHEV) system. Renault is offering its Kangoo PHEV that can go
60 miles on a charge before switching back to gas. Commuter Cars Corp. of
Spokane, Wash., is offering a low-volume electric car called the Tango for
$85,000.

Meanwhile, a not-for-profit outfit called CalCars in San Francisco is modifying
two Priuses by adding more battery power and a plug. The group has discovered an
empty space under the hatch near the current battery that looks almost as if
Toyota intended to do this itself one day. "We hope to get significantly more
miles per gallon with the additional battery power," says Felix Kramer, the
group's founder. "Our purpose is to show Toyota that there is demand for this
kind of vehicle."

Will Toyota — or Detroit — respond? Not without major breakthroughs in
technology, says Dan Bedore, a Ford spokesman. "It's become pretty clear that
our ... non-plug-in hybrid system is the direction we see the market going."

"The answer is they really don't want to do it," Frank says. "We're just a bunch
of students. If we can build this with off-the-shelf technology, they can too —
and do things better than what we do. If they really were interested in doing
something in the short term, they could do it."

Copyright 2005, The Christian Scinece Monitor





++++++++++++++++++++++++++STOP THE WALL++++++++++++++++++++++++++

www.stopthewall.org www.nad-plo.org www.hrw.org www.pal-arc.org
www.endtheoccupation.org www.sustaincampaign.org







---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]