According to The Thorium Dream by Motherboard TV, it is because two major nuclear powerhouses want it that way.  The other reason mentioned was that the current reactors, using 60 year old technology, are what we are comfortable with and what we know works.  The fact that there have been major disasters like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and, most recently, Fukishima have shown that that doesn’t make them safe and the results are devastating when they fail.

Enter Thorium as the miracle that will save us as fossil fuel supplies dry up and current Uranium reactors are viewed as too dangerous.  Rather than using solid fuel rods like light water reactors(LWR) do, Thorium reactors use a liquid Thorium salt mixture.  It doesn’t require redundant safety mechanisms in part because it doesn’t blow up.  Unlike Uranium, you can’t make bombs out of Thorium.

Richard Martin talked about Thorium on The Leonard Lapate Show.  According to Martin, the amount of Thorium needed to produce electricity is significantly less than needed in a Uranium reactor.  A liquid Thorium-Fluoride salt reactor is actually a breeder reactor where it creates more fuel as it producing electricity.  These types of reactors would require less maintenance and could run longer on the same fuel producing less nuclear waste.  Should something happen to the reactor it would not blow up.  At the bottom of the reactor is a and salt plug that would melt draining the radioactive fuel into a lead lined safety chamber. In other words we are talking about a type of nuclear reactor that is much safer than Uranium reactors, with less waste, and less maintenance.

A Thorium reactor was brought on line in the 1960’s but was shut down after 6 years primarily because market forces decided to continue focusing on Uranium reactors.  Watch The Thorium Dream to get a better picture on why. While the United States may have taken a pass on these safer types of reactors, other countries like India and China are funding Thorium research and will probably have Thorium reactors before we will. 

Unlike fossil fuels, Thorium doesn’t produce any carbon byproducts which makes it cleaner even than natural gas.  It is readily available so one country or area of the world, think OPEC, can’t manipulate the cost.  It would not require such risky methods as fracking or trying to extract oil from shale using pollution producing methods.

All in all it looks as if Thorium reactors would actually help solve a number of our energy problems.  While renewable energy is continuing to grow, it is growing so slowly that we still use coal fired plants for much of our electricity.  Thorium nuclear reactors would produce cleaner electricity.  We would have cheaper electricity and could power our lives (including cars) using only a golf ball size of Thorium. 

The Thorium Dream will become reality.  Too bad it won’t happen here first.

More information on Thorium can be found here and here.

According to Gas2 the $10,000 would be applied to natural gas vehicles as well other green technology cars which presumably takes in hybrids as well as EVs.  The rebate as opposed to the tax credit would mean that more people would be able to purchase these green technology vehicles.

Right now the only people who can afford cars like the Tesla S car, Chevy Volt, or even Nissan Leaf have to have a fairly good income to shell out $36,000 to $60,000 for a car.  If the $10,000 is taken off the front end, it moves at least a couple of the cars like the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt into the affordable range at $26,000 and $31,000 respectively.

If manufacturers can get more people buying these green tech vehicles than they can produce more of the cars which in turn lowers the price.  It’s simply that higher production means lower costs for all involved. 

While Obama may be trying to help the adoption of green vehicles, Congress is another matter.  The Republican majority in the House is rabidly pro-fossil fuels and anti-green anything.  Getting any part of Obama’s budget through is going to be difficult.  Getting this particular provision through may be just about impossible in this coming election year.

Too bad we have a Republican leadership whose stated goal is to make Obama a one term president.  If they were more interested in helping car manufacturers and in turn consumers, we might see this little piece of goodness passed.  Ford, Chevrolet, Tesla, GM and other American car companies would benefit from the passage of this provision. 

Maybe we’ll be lucky and this provision will actually sneak through on rider to prolong Exxon and BP’s gas subsidies.  Stranger things have happened.

Safran Group and Honeywell announced that easyJet will begin testing the EGTS in 2013. The companies hope to begin providing the system for new airplanes and as a retrofit by 2016. As the UK’s biggest airline with 604 routes to 130 airports in 29 countries, easyJet will be able to give the system a thorough testing.

Due to the high frequency and short sector lengths of easyJet’s operations, around 4% of total fuel consumed annually is used when the airline’s aircraft are taxiing. easyJet’s aircraft average 20 minutes of taxi time per flight – the equivalent of 3.5 million miles a year.

The tests will make sure that the fuel savings are actually realized and will determine other benefits of the system. 

Each wheel is fitted not only with a motor but also with an electromechanical actuator and unique power electronics and system controllers. One benefits of this new system will be the increased maneuverability and control over speed, direction and braking of the plane as it approaches the docking area. Currently planes are tugged into the docks.  The new system should reduce or eliminate the need for the final assist.

Cutting down on fuel costs isn’t the only reason to look for innovative ways to incorporate electrical systems and and reduce fuel use.  The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) went into effect on January 1 of this year.  That scheme requires airlines using European airports to account for their greenhouse gases.  The idea behind the EU ETS is to speed up the adoption of green technologies, like this one, in aviation.

Although The New York Times has reported that the EU is willing to suspend some portions of the directive that doesn’t mean that this type of innovation will cease.  One of the conditions of suspending portions of the ETS is that a global system would need to be developed that would go beyond the ETS in achieving reductions of green house gases in aviation.

While the four percent reduction in fuel might not seem like a lot, it is one step of many, like the combination of weight reduction and more powerful batteries increases the distance that an electric vehicle can travel.  Safran, Honeywell and easyJet are testing a system that with the addition of other innovations like jet biofuels will reduce greenhouse gas emission and make breathing easier.

The Commission issued the new standards as a way to save 8,000 gigawatt hours of electricity.  That’s the amount of energy wasted each year by inefficient battery chargers. The monetary savings would be $306 million that California tax payers could keep in their pockets.  According to Energy Star, if everyone in America were to use energy efficient battery chargers, it would “prevent the release of more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions – equivalent to the emissions of 150,000 cars.” Another by product of new battery charger standards is that it reduces the need to build more power plants.

Battery charger systems use energy in three modes: (1) energy used to actually charge batteries (charge mode); (2) energy consumed by the battery charger when the battery has been removed or disconnected (no-battery mode); and (3) energy consumed after the battery has been fully charged (battery-maintenance mode).

The proposed standards will eliminate wasted energy by setting a limit on the total electricity consumed by a battery charger in all three modes. Many consumer electronics manufacturers produce chargers that already meet the standards.

Energy efficient charging technology has been around for a while. In March of 2010, AT&T introduced the ZERO charger.  The ZERO charger turned off once the cell phone was charged saving electricity and money for the consumer. Apple has a battery charger that has one of the lowest vampire draws on the market.  According to the company the charger which charges six rechargeable AA batteries only uses 30 mW in standby mode while other battery chargers will use 315 mW.

So California’s new standards aren’t requiring manufacturers to come up with some new technology.  The standards require that charger manufacturers incorporate known technology into the chargers that are being made. The U.S. Department of Energy is also working on energy efficiency standards for battery chargers. 

California has frequently been a forerunner in the areas of energy efficiency and reduced pollution.  Once the makers of battery chargers start manufacturing chargers that meet California standards, the rest of us will benefit as well.  After all, if they have to make more efficient battery chargers for California, might as well make them for the rest of the country.

With all of the gadgets that we have these days that require battery chargers, having more energy efficient ones can only help us all.

French engineering company, Ginger Groupe, would like to transform the Eiffel Tower into a “living tree” according to Reuters and Sustainablog.  The company is proposing that the structure be fitted with approximately 600,000 plants hung in hemp bags of soil with an additional installation of  12 tons of tubing for irrigation.  The “installation would remove 87.8 tons of carbon dioxide from the air and is estimated to cost 97 million dollars.”  From afar, the Eiffel Tower would look like it was sprouting green fuzz.

That’s more than a million dollars per ton.  The company proposes to start the installation in the latter half of 2012, but it is still working on getting permission and funding to put their idea into action.  So far, the authorities haven’t jumped at the chance to “symbolize the reconciliation of nature and mankind” by covering one of the best known structures in France in greenery.  The installation would only last through 2014 when it would be dismantled.  It hardly seems worth the time, trouble and controversy that the installation would incur.

Delegates at the latest Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa recently agreed to enter a future agreement to reduce carbon emissions.  Part of that settlement saw the European Union agree to an extension of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  As such France is still under a legal obligation to continue to lower carbon emissions.

While fitting the Eiffel Tower with 600,000 plants would help meet France’s emission goals, there are better ways of doing so without covering up countries most well-known monument.  Promoting the use of electric vehicles with the installation of charging stations while improving the efficiency of the countries electrical grid would go further towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions over a longer period of time.

The Ginger Group provides environmental engineering and turnkey construction and maintenance solutions for its customers.  So far, the Eiffel Tower doesn’t look as if it will be one of its projects. 

Photo: Eiffel Tower by ana braca under Creative Commons

The Chicago Tribune reports that Congress postponed the enforcement of the new light bulb efficiency standards in last nights passage of the omnibus spending bill.  The new efficiency standards still go into effect but the Department of Energy can’t enforcement them for nine months. 

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the trade group whose members produce more than 95 percent of the light bulbs sold in the United States, supported the new energy efficient standards. It said its members have invested millions since Congress approved the standards in 2007, preparing to comply with the new rules, which remain in effect even if they will not be enforced.

"The industry is concerned that any delay in federal enforcement … will undermine those investments and also create regulatory uncertainty," said Kyle Pitsor, vice president of government affairs for the trade group.

The standards were approved in the 2007 Energy Independence & Security Act  (EISA) in Title III sections 321 and 322 .  It required light bulb manufacturers to reduce the amount of wattage needed to produce the same amount of light (lumens) produced by a 100 W incandescent bulb.  Manufacturers were required to produce bulbs that used only 72 W to equal the same amount of lumens.  By reducing the amount of energy required to produce the same amount of light, individuals, communities and the nation would see savings.  Energystar.gov describes the law and why it was enacted below.

Under the new law, screw-based light bulbs will use fewer watts for a similar lumen output. The standards are technology neutral, which means any type of bulb can be sold as long as it meets the efficiency requirements. Common household light bulbs that traditionally use between 40 and 100 watts will use at least 27% less energy by 2014. The law applies to the manufacturer date and will begin affecting 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. California began the transition one year earlier.

The second part of the law requires that most light bulbs be 60-70% more efficient than the standard incandescent today; this will go into effect in 2020. Many compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and many Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) can meet this requirement today, shaving energy usage compared to standard incandescents by 75%.
Efficiency is measured by the number of lumens per watt a bulb provides. Lumens tell us how bright a light bulb is. Watts tell us how much energy the light bulb uses.

EISA is eliminating unnecessarily wasteful products from the market. There are 4 billion light bulb sockets in the U.S. and more than 3 billion of them still use the standard incandescent technology that hasn’t changed much in 125 years. A standard incandescent is only 10% efficient – the other 90% of the electricity it uses is lost as heat.
Another benefit of using more efficient light bulbs includes reductions of harmful emissions from coal-fired power plants (mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, acid gases and greenhouse gases1). This helps to protect the health of our citizens, wildlife and environment, and it’s an easy, achievable step toward reducing our carbon footprint.
Additionally, efficient products mean cost savings. The new standards mean U.S. households collectively could save nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone, as estimated by U.S. Department of Energy.

The change in light bulbs should reduce the amount of CO2 emissions the equivalent of the pollution generated by 24 new coal plants.

While some people seem to think that this is the governments way of forcing us to use CFLs that contain harmful mercury, they forget that incandescent bulbs have high levels of lead that are harmful.  Consumers will be able to choose among an assortment of different bulbs from CFLs to LEDs to Halogen.  Really, light bulbs haven’t been safe since their inception by Thomas Edison in the 1880s, we just haven’t given it much thought.

Congress may have been striking some sort of strange stance for “freedom of choice” but what they have really done is harm American manufacturers without helping much of anyone.  

According to Science Daily researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, studied the impact in California of kicking hybrids with fewer than two occupants out of the HOV lane.  Back in 2005, the state allowed drivers of hybrid vehicles to drive in the HOV lane as a perk for driving an environmentally friendly car.  That perk ended this year on July 1st.  The results were not as expected.

California decided to eliminate the privilege because of critics complaints that hybrids with only one occupant were clogging up the HOV lane.  Since the number of hybrids being driven in California had reached 85,000, the state decided to heed the critics.

What resulted according to studies by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) is that rather than helping the situation, kicking solo driver hybrids out of the HOV lane only slowed down everyone.  Surely this was not the intended effect.

ITS used “traffic flow theories and six months of data from roadway sensors measuring speed and congestion along all freeway carpool lanes in the San Francisco Bay Area” in its analysis.  Rather than speeding up the HOV lane, all the lanes slowed down.  The critics who expected a speedier HOV lane actually got just the opposite.

Two factors account for the poor results in the HOV lane.

One factor is the presence of additional cars, including hybrids, which slow down traffic. One might think that moving vehicles out would allow the remaining cars in the lane to go faster.

But the data show that traffic speed in the carpool lane is also influenced by the speed of the adjacent lanes. Moving the hybrids into the neighboring lanes increases congestion in those lanes, which in turn slows down the carpoolers.

EVs, Low Emission Vehicles, or ILEVs, such as hydrogen fuel cell, and natural gas powered cars can still drive in the HOV lane with only one occupant.   If the feds allow it “40,000 super-clean plug-in-hybrids or hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine vehicles” will be allowed in the HOV lane even with just a solo driver.

Even with those 40,000 extra cars the ITS is saying that the 85,000 hybrids that lost their HOV solo driver privilege should be allowed back in.  According to the study, this would actually speed up the HOV lane by reducing congestion in nearby lanes.

On a non-scientific note, Atlanta has taken its HOV lanes and turned them into toll lanes.  You can enter the lanes with a Peachtree Pass and be charged for the distance you drive in the lane.  Supposedly this is to speed up traffic and raise revenue at the same time. 

While driving into Atlanta recently, I observed a total of six cars in the Peachtree Pass lane from it’s beginning in to downtown.  Normally, the lane would have had dozens of cars with multiple passengers speeding right along. 

While those willing to pay for the privilege of using the lane might have gotten there faster, the congestion and higher risk of accidents on the rest of the expressway are probably raising first responder costs.  By turning the HOV lane into the Peachtree Pass toll lane, the government is probably losing more money than it is gaining in revenues.

Governments need to rethink their elimination or restriction of HOV lanes.  The results of those decisions are not turning out as planned.

Enviromission has signed a contract with Southern California Public Power Authority to provide 200MW of electricity from one of its two solar updraft towers slated to be built in Arizona.  According to CNN that solar updraft tower will be 2,600 feet tall and will power 100,000 homes.

Both towers will be built of concrete in the Arizona desert. The first one is expected to be the second largest tower in the world.  The second tower will presumably be as tall to generate as much energy.  Both towers are expected to last 80 years which is much longer than other solar installations.

Around the base of the tower will be “a huge translucent sloping canopy” the width of a football field.  The hot air that collects under the canopy is funneled to the solar tower.  As the hot air rises through the solar tower it will turn 32 turbines which produce electricity.  The taller the tower the faster the turbines spin.

Hot air continues to be released from the ground at night which will keep the solar tower producing energy.  Unlike normal solar power, the solar updraft tower will continue producing electricity after dark. Although wind will contribute to the rising hot air in the tower, the production of energy won’t stop when the wind does.

This process also doesn’t require water like conventional forms of electricity production from coal and nuclear power plants.  Which is good since Arizona only gets about 7.11 inches a year.  Arizona is also in a drought which means it isn’t even getting the normal 7.11 inches of rain so any solar facility that added stress on the state’s water supply would not be welcome.

Other Enviromission solar towers have been built but they have not been as tall as this one.  A small iron solar tower was built in Spain.  It toppled after seven years because its support wires broke, hence the use of concrete in newer towers.  Another small tower is being built in China.  This tower will be “built in phases.”  The first phase is already up and generating 200 kilowatts per day.

The company still has a few problems to overcome.  While it has begun raising funds for the installation, it still has quite a bit more to raise.  Then there are the “combination of political factors, environmental policies and the cheap cost of fossil fuels” that have to be overcome.

When these towers do begin operating there will be very little staff or maintenance required to keep the solar tower operational.  Air is free unlike coal, nuclear fuel, or fossil fuel used in most power plants today.

The Enviromission’s solar tower will be one of the most environmentally friendly power installations built.  It will only take two and a half years of hot air energy production to offset the carbon dioxide generated from shipping in supplies and building the installation.  Overall the solar tower should offset 1 million tons of green house gases per year.

I wonder if an updraft tower could be built over Washington D.C..  It seems a shame to waste all that hot air.

Recent research conducted by the Global Footprint Network and described in PhysOrg shows that we will use up a years worth of natural resources by September 27, 2011 creating an ecological debt.

[ world biocapacity / world Ecological Footprint ] x 365 = Earth Overshoot Day

Essentially we have been “overshooting” since the 1970’s but our ever increasing population, deforestation, pollution, overfishing, and further rapid use of the resources around us are causing us to go through a years worth of resources more quickly.  It is estimated that by the end of December we will have used 135 percent of the earth’s resources this year. 

Ecological overshoot occurs when human demand exceeds the regenerative capacity of a natural ecosystem. Global overshoot occurs when humanity demands more resources and produces more waste, such as CO2, than the biosphere can regenerate and reabsorb.

This year we will have used the resources of between 1.3 and 1.5 planets to sustain ourselves.  If we keep going as we are by 2030 we will need resources equivalent to two planets to sustain ourselves.  Although astronomers announced the discovery of “more than 50 new exoplanets, including 16 super-Earths” this doesn’t mean that any of the newly found “super-Earths” actually is habitable much less that we could get to any of them by 2030. We only have this one planet to sustain us so we need to start paying attention to our ecological debt.

So what does this actually mean?  It means that we will see more severe droughts, shrinking forests, greater extinction of species, severe water shortages from water overuse, more crop failures, and eventually wars breaking out over scarce resources. 

Back in 2001, The Why Files published a piece on Where’s the Water?  The piece described growing water shortages around the world.  It also talked about disappearing aquifers, and “private for profit water sales”.  In 2008 Natural News reported that 36 states in the U.S. would experience water shortages within the next five years. 

Available freshwater supplies are dwindling across the country due to rising temperatures and droughts, while increasing sprawl, population and inefficient resource usage are leading to rising demand.

According to the most recent Drought Monitor Map of the United States, exceptional drought conditions exist in most of Texas and Oklahoma and parts of Kansas, New Mexico, and Arizona.  Other parts of Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma are in drought conditions that range from abnormally dry to extreme.  Extreme drought conditions exist in Georgia, parts of Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana and Colorado. 

South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas have major drought conditions that include abnormally dry, to moderate and severe drought conditions.  California, Nebraska, Virginia, West Virginia, Michigan, Florida, New York, Nevada, and Utah have abnormally dry conditions in parts of their states.  That is over half of the United States that is suffering from some sort of water shortage in late September 2011.

That is simply looking at water resources in the United States.  Other parts of the world like Sudan, suffer ongoing water shortages as well.  The three year drought in the Sudan and Somalia has led to ongoing wars.  So far the water wars in the United States are confined to the courts.

The same people who are screaming over our federal debt are blocking any attempts to deal with our ecological problems.  In essence ignoring that it even exists.  Unfortunately, ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away.  It only means a greater disaster is looming.

Graphic from the Global Footprint Network

PhysOrg reported this last week on three new renewable energy initiatives in Japan.  One initiative will rebuild stricken areas and include installing smart grids and big solar installations.  Homes and businesses will be fitted with “smart meters” and power generated in one area will be transported from Hitachi’s Ibaraki Prefecture factory to “evacuation centers by buses equipped with storage batteries in the event of a disaster.” A major solar plant is planned for vacant land damaged in the earthquake.  Other initiatives being pursued are building a smart city with solar installations and large scale energy storage, and building solar power plants to run food processing plants.

The second initiative is building a floating wind farm near the Fukushima nuclear plant that was devastated in the earthquake and resulting tsunami.  Six floating wind turbines capable of generating 12 MW of power all together are expected to be built and online by 2015 at a cost of 20 billion yen ($261 million).  The government expects opposition from local fishermen whose incomes have suffered from the twin disasters.  Since there is still some fear of ongoing radiation leaks into the sea, wind turbines are a better fit than fishing.  Also Japan is trying to move away from nuclear energy as a large portion of its energy base and towards a greater percentage of renewable energy.

The final initiative has been started by the wealthiest businessman in Japan.  Masayoshi Son, founder and CEO of Softbank, one of Japan’s largest Internet conglomerates is starting the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation (JREF).  He has pledged one billion yen of his own to get the foundation started.  Besides solar and wind installations, that he plans, he also wants to see geothermal installations.  He is looking for other investors from the government and other businesses to join him in raising the two trillion yen per year that will be required.  He ultimately wants to see renewable energy providing 60 percent of the nations energy replacing the almost 30 percent currently provided by nuclear installations with plenty of energy to spare.

These three proposals would move Japan away from its reliance on nuclear energy toward safer and more stable renewable energy installations.  Most of the solar and wind installations are planned for industrial parks with land to spare, spent farmland lying empty, and the ocean.  Every disaster provides an opportunity. Too bad it took an earthquake and tsunami to move Japan in this direction.