A major theme in the response to the supposed energy crisis, global health, alternative energy field centers on the capitalistic response to the issues. These responses ranged from venture capitalists to clean energy stock indexes. At the beginning of the semester the tone of the articles was a little more hesitant towards investing in clean energy, but by the very end it was nothing but sheer praise. There was considerable discourse concerning foreign investment in the program.
I predict that sooner or later there will be an international cap on carbon dioxide emissions. I am not sure when this will happen, but it seems to be the goal of many countries. I believe that investment into alternative energy / clean energy will do nothing but continue to rise and become more common to stock investors everywhere. The response to global energy and global climate seems to be still be in the creation and mobilization process, but the problem is being attacked from many sides, so I am hopeful to this extent.
The commenting processes was rather disappointing. It wasn’t until half way through the semester that I received my first comment, and I had been keeping up with my postings. The idea was interesting, if not novel. I enjoyed the overall online process, now that it is over.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Clean Energy Index founder does well at doing good
By Matt Krantz - USA Today - 3/22/07
Robert Wilder created a stock market index based solely on clean energy companies, whose worth is more than $800 million. This is quite a bit more than the $44 million in the Sierra Club Stock index. "The WilderHill index appeals to investors' desire to save the Earth and make money doing it." Wilder, obviously an environmentalist, chose this over traditional environmental work because he saw it as more productive. He believes that many environmental groups spend too much time finding things to panic about, or are more interested in cleaning up messes instead of preventing them. His index has brought on competition, though: the Dow Jones now has its own Sustainability index, Nasdaq with their Clean Edge U.S. Index, and the S&P has it's own green index as well.
For the most part, the summary that I would make here is going to be my short critical summary. So I'm going to hold those thoughts off for a few hours and say, "cool beans, Wilder. Good idea."
Robert Wilder created a stock market index based solely on clean energy companies, whose worth is more than $800 million. This is quite a bit more than the $44 million in the Sierra Club Stock index. "The WilderHill index appeals to investors' desire to save the Earth and make money doing it." Wilder, obviously an environmentalist, chose this over traditional environmental work because he saw it as more productive. He believes that many environmental groups spend too much time finding things to panic about, or are more interested in cleaning up messes instead of preventing them. His index has brought on competition, though: the Dow Jones now has its own Sustainability index, Nasdaq with their Clean Edge U.S. Index, and the S&P has it's own green index as well.
For the most part, the summary that I would make here is going to be my short critical summary. So I'm going to hold those thoughts off for a few hours and say, "cool beans, Wilder. Good idea."
Gore Warns Capitol Hill about climate
By Traci Watson - USA Today - 3/22/07
On Wednesday Al Gore advised House science and energy committees on the necessity to make changes concerning global warming. He suggested a ban on incandescent light bulbs and freezing the USA's yearly emissions linked to global warming. He was frank on the matter: "We do not have time to play around with this." He called global warming a "planetary emergency." Some congressmen, such as Republican Joe Barton, asked questions of Gore only to read a newspaper while he talked. Others, such as Demorcrat Ed Markey, said that his concerns made him look like a prophet, "because history has borne you out."
Yes, I purposefully made a party-related point right there. I did it because that's what global warming could come down to, party politics. And it just gets on my nerves. I can't think of something to change this problem, but it just shows how much people can't think for themselves. They support their supporters, and if that ruins the Earth, so be it. Hooray Team Earth.
On Wednesday Al Gore advised House science and energy committees on the necessity to make changes concerning global warming. He suggested a ban on incandescent light bulbs and freezing the USA's yearly emissions linked to global warming. He was frank on the matter: "We do not have time to play around with this." He called global warming a "planetary emergency." Some congressmen, such as Republican Joe Barton, asked questions of Gore only to read a newspaper while he talked. Others, such as Demorcrat Ed Markey, said that his concerns made him look like a prophet, "because history has borne you out."
Yes, I purposefully made a party-related point right there. I did it because that's what global warming could come down to, party politics. And it just gets on my nerves. I can't think of something to change this problem, but it just shows how much people can't think for themselves. They support their supporters, and if that ruins the Earth, so be it. Hooray Team Earth.
Saving on Utilities Just Takes Gazing Into A Crystal Ball
By Paul Davidson - USA Today - 3/21/07
Utilities are beginning to promote smart meters that allow consumers to know the cost of electricity (kilowatts/hour) throughout the day, allowing them to use less energy during peak periods and more when the cost of electricy is cheaper. This only applies to people who opt into flexible rates, though. This has many benefits, including conservation and reduced pressure on the national power grid. Customers who opt into the program usually save between $20 and $200 per month. The title refers to a meter that changes from light blue (6 cents per KW/H) to red (17 centers per KW/H), and also flashes red during peak hours when the costs range from 20 cents to 50 cents. The meters can even be automated to only use certain appliances when the costs are right, and can even be changed online.
This is such a good idea. I love it. It's such a win-win-win situation for the customer, utility company, and environment. It's such a great blend of technology and clean energy. Unfortunately, there is not much widespread use, yet, because of initial costs of installing the meters, but by 2012 40% of Americans should have smart meters. It works too: customers with the meters use 4% less energy. All I have to say is make it 10%, and nationwide and we've got a real change happening because of this little innovation.
Utilities are beginning to promote smart meters that allow consumers to know the cost of electricity (kilowatts/hour) throughout the day, allowing them to use less energy during peak periods and more when the cost of electricy is cheaper. This only applies to people who opt into flexible rates, though. This has many benefits, including conservation and reduced pressure on the national power grid. Customers who opt into the program usually save between $20 and $200 per month. The title refers to a meter that changes from light blue (6 cents per KW/H) to red (17 centers per KW/H), and also flashes red during peak hours when the costs range from 20 cents to 50 cents. The meters can even be automated to only use certain appliances when the costs are right, and can even be changed online.
This is such a good idea. I love it. It's such a win-win-win situation for the customer, utility company, and environment. It's such a great blend of technology and clean energy. Unfortunately, there is not much widespread use, yet, because of initial costs of installing the meters, but by 2012 40% of Americans should have smart meters. It works too: customers with the meters use 4% less energy. All I have to say is make it 10%, and nationwide and we've got a real change happening because of this little innovation.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Edwards' Energy Plan Proposes A Cap on Heat-Trapping Gases
AP - NYT - 3/21/07
John Edwards, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, went to Nevada, Iowa, to talk about America's future concerning its energy independence. He is seeking to cap emissions of carbon dioxide beginning in 2010 and cutting them by 15% in 2010. He is considering drafting a global warming treaty. And, very odd, he wants to create an "Energy Fund" by selling $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits. Among other things he is also looking to have renewable sources provide 25% of the U.S.'s energy.
I just have to say, this is ridiculous. Where are the hard numbers! You can't just say "I want to cut x by 15% in 10 years!" It doesn't work that way. And what sort of energy fund is funded by doing the opposite of it intention? Edwards even went so far as to literally copy the trite, "Ther eis a direct link between our addiction to oil and our national security." All I have to say is: Lame. Good luck with that nomination.
John Edwards, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, went to Nevada, Iowa, to talk about America's future concerning its energy independence. He is seeking to cap emissions of carbon dioxide beginning in 2010 and cutting them by 15% in 2010. He is considering drafting a global warming treaty. And, very odd, he wants to create an "Energy Fund" by selling $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits. Among other things he is also looking to have renewable sources provide 25% of the U.S.'s energy.
I just have to say, this is ridiculous. Where are the hard numbers! You can't just say "I want to cut x by 15% in 10 years!" It doesn't work that way. And what sort of energy fund is funded by doing the opposite of it intention? Edwards even went so far as to literally copy the trite, "Ther eis a direct link between our addiction to oil and our national security." All I have to say is: Lame. Good luck with that nomination.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Green Gold, or Just Slime?
By Clifford Krauss - NYT - 3/7/07
This article introduces us to Lissa Morgenthaler-Jones and David Jones, two venture capitalists who have decided to invest in algae as a fuel source. What is special as algae as a fuel source is that not only do they provide an energy source, but they actually do something good for the environment at the same time. In 2006 venture capitalists invested $2.4 billion into clean energy, more than double since 2005. LiveFuels, the aforementioned capitalists' company, is among many alternative energy companies, such as Prometheus Energy, which converts methane gas into liquid natural gas, and Jadoo Power, which uses hydrogen fuel cells for handheld technology. Supposedly if the U.S. put 15 million acres of desert into algae production we could be energy independent of the Middle East. They mention the ability to soon be able to produce 20,000 gallons of fuel each year, but there is no mention of what that really means. Is a gallon of algae gas the same as a gallon of gas from Circle K?
I suppose I like this algae idea. I'm more impressed that venture capitalists are investing in alternative energies, but that is old news. How cool are fuels that are good for the environment? I also like that there are such a variety of alternative energies: wind power, solar power, algae power, methane conversion, hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, and so on. Ingenuity is what that is.
This article introduces us to Lissa Morgenthaler-Jones and David Jones, two venture capitalists who have decided to invest in algae as a fuel source. What is special as algae as a fuel source is that not only do they provide an energy source, but they actually do something good for the environment at the same time. In 2006 venture capitalists invested $2.4 billion into clean energy, more than double since 2005. LiveFuels, the aforementioned capitalists' company, is among many alternative energy companies, such as Prometheus Energy, which converts methane gas into liquid natural gas, and Jadoo Power, which uses hydrogen fuel cells for handheld technology. Supposedly if the U.S. put 15 million acres of desert into algae production we could be energy independent of the Middle East. They mention the ability to soon be able to produce 20,000 gallons of fuel each year, but there is no mention of what that really means. Is a gallon of algae gas the same as a gallon of gas from Circle K?
I suppose I like this algae idea. I'm more impressed that venture capitalists are investing in alternative energies, but that is old news. How cool are fuels that are good for the environment? I also like that there are such a variety of alternative energies: wind power, solar power, algae power, methane conversion, hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, and so on. Ingenuity is what that is.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Scientists Urge Global Action on Clean Energy
United Nations Associated Press - NYT - 2/28/07
A scientific panel convened at the UN and called for drastic reductions in fossil-fuel emissions and vastly increased spending on clean energy research. The 166-page report called for a century of rising seas, drought, and damage to farms, forests, and oceans. It went so far as to recommend that all governments prevent any building on land less than one meter above sea level. The report, like the recent climate report, put blame on green house gases caused by the burning of fossil fuels. According to the report the Earth's average temperature could rise eleven degrees by 2100. Unlike the report's forecasting, though, it stayed away from making actual recommendations on courses of action. According to the article, "The Bush administration says it is spending almost $3 billion a year on energy technology research as its major contribution to combating climate change."
Does this seem like it's enough to you? Hint, check out costofwar.com , they'll tell you that the Iraq war has cost...wait for it....wait for it...$408 billion dollars. Hmmm...$100 billion on a useless war / year, or $3 billion / year combating climate change...which seems like it is a higher priority? But that is old news. For some reason it is difficult for me to trust this article. I am not sure why; perhaps it is because they make no suggestions on how to stop this problem, other than throwing money at it. In any case, it still provides more evidence showing the impacts of global warming.
A scientific panel convened at the UN and called for drastic reductions in fossil-fuel emissions and vastly increased spending on clean energy research. The 166-page report called for a century of rising seas, drought, and damage to farms, forests, and oceans. It went so far as to recommend that all governments prevent any building on land less than one meter above sea level. The report, like the recent climate report, put blame on green house gases caused by the burning of fossil fuels. According to the report the Earth's average temperature could rise eleven degrees by 2100. Unlike the report's forecasting, though, it stayed away from making actual recommendations on courses of action. According to the article, "The Bush administration says it is spending almost $3 billion a year on energy technology research as its major contribution to combating climate change."
Does this seem like it's enough to you? Hint, check out costofwar.com , they'll tell you that the Iraq war has cost...wait for it....wait for it...$408 billion dollars. Hmmm...$100 billion on a useless war / year, or $3 billion / year combating climate change...which seems like it is a higher priority? But that is old news. For some reason it is difficult for me to trust this article. I am not sure why; perhaps it is because they make no suggestions on how to stop this problem, other than throwing money at it. In any case, it still provides more evidence showing the impacts of global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)