Group items tagged

Tocco de Casuaria, Italy is a small town that has installed wind and solar energy and is now producing a 30% surplus of energy that they are able to sell to the electricity company. With this money, the people of Tocco have been able to increase the wages of street workers as well as town maintenance. The financial benefits of using renewable energy, versus a deep concern for the health of the natural environment, has been the driving force for this town and other towns across Europe to adapt this new technology. This conversion is more difficult in the U.S. because the government does not provide a great incentive for people using renewable energy as far as a cash return from excessive energy production.

Now this is very interesting, if not particularly surprising. The US military has begun pushing for the development of renewable energy sources that can be readily deployed in battlefield situations and remote locations where traditional fossil fuels are prohibitively scarce. Trucking fuel to outposts and encampments in Afghanistan can be dangerous: "...for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed. " It is also extremely expensive. The US military buys fuel for around $1 a gallon, but shipping that fuel can easily cost hundreds of dollars per gallon. Taking those transport costs into account, the high initial costs of investing in renewable energy are put into perspective. The US navy has begun to experiment with ships that run on electricity at lower speeds, as well as jets that use mixtures of conventional and bio-fuels. It is likely the "experts" say, that development of these technologies for military use will lead to more affordable civilian versions.

People love talking about wind and solar. For good reason, too. Geothermal, hydro, and other renewable energy sources are valuable, but ultimately only sun and wind (and mostly sun) have the heft necessary to power the nation. That leaves us with two big problems! Night time and windless days. Enough power has to be produced to meet minimal needs at any given time, which is related to the idea of baseload production. When the wind is really moving, or the sun is particularly bright, wind and solar plants can generally overproduce. But all that is for naught when night rolls around, unless things like pumped hydro or NaS batteries fill in the gaps. Of course, there is always nuclear. Tempting as it is to say you can either argue for nuclear, or read about Japan, the nuclear option is still on the table - largely because of its ability to provide constant energy. But if wind and solar are indeed more desirable, storage is an absolute must, and worth being informed about.

All throughout Europe, nuclear power is on the rebound, with a number of plants formerly slated for decommissioning now receiving (mixed) political support.  As the chancellor of Germany states, "Nuclear energy is a bridge technology." There is debate in the enviro movement over the use of nuclear as a bridge technology while renewable forms are being developed; what do you think?

The military essentially suddenly decided to use renewable energy out in the field, mostly in Afghanistan because transporting fuel is dangerous there. They used mostly civilian technology but the mass use should bring the cost down and with more scientists updating it the technology will also get better.

The film itself is interesting, but not surprising in its general concept - instead of apocalyptic imagery and fear, embrace a more positive, benefits centered climate change thing. What I thought was more interesting was how they intentionally draw from a whole range of cultural perspectives, which I think is most significant when read as an implicit statement that issues of relating to other cultural mindsets and attitudes, rather than just having solid science and good ideas, may make the difference in solving environmental issues. Perhaps its an obvious statement, but it is worth remembering as we sit on a campus fairly lacking in cultural or ideological diversity. Other people see the world in certain ways, and sometimes we have to convince them through those ways rather than via the logic of our own worldview. But do we sacrifice our cause by trying to achieve our goals via means/arguments we don't neccesarily agree with?

I just watched the trailer, but I think I still got the point. Why not encourage consumption of cleaner, more-efficient renewable energy as opposed to trying to change the values of a whole culture and come off as a proselytizing environmental-elitist? It would sure be a lot less stressful way to try to enact change. I'd have to see the film in its entirety but it seems that they are taking something of a "let markets fix the problem" approach, but in a way that I can agree with. We have to come to terms with the fact that Americans aren't going to magically start consuming less just because us conservationists think it's the right way to live. I love the line where one guy says not to [support renewable efficient energy] because you care about the environment, do it cause you're a greedy bastard and want cheap power. People aren't going to change exactly how we want them, so let's just work with them.

This article discusses the government's recently launched research on how anaerobic digestion, "a renewable energy technology that generates heat and electricity from waste organic matter," could possibly replace manufactured nitrogen fertilizer. They hope this will save money for the farmers and increase yield.