Politics | Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10943)7/12/2010 3:56:33 PM
From: tejek   of 14949
 
Probably alien lizards from outer space.

Seriously. That's the best photo of a UFO I've ever seen. And the airport closing in China reminds me of the Ohare UFO incident in 2006:


en.wikipedia.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (10940)7/12/2010 7:18:52 PM
From: Wharf Rat   of 14949
 
With a boost from innovation, small wind is powering ahead
by Alex Salkever
New technologies, feed-in tariffs, and tax credits are helping propel the small wind industry, especially in the United States. Once found mostly in rural areas, small wind installations are now starting to pop up on urban rooftops.
The Solarium, a new 8-story apartment building in New York City, is part of a new wave of green buildings in Gotham. Its exterior is made from 100 percent recycled material. The burnished floors are sustainably farmed bamboo. The apartments lack bathtubs in order to save water. Perhaps the most novel green accoutrement of the Solarium, however, is a small, black windmill perched on a short pole rising from the rooftop. Made by WindTronics, the windmill went live in April — it is one of the early beta units from the Michigan startup.
The company claims a single windmill can supply as much as 30 percent of a household’s annual power needs if winds average roughly 10 miles per hour. That is a brisk steady breeze but even homes averaging lesser amounts (5-9 mph winds) can receive significant electrical outputs of 15 to 30 percent of annual power needs. The Solarium’s wind turbine will power light fixtures in common areas and a rooftop theater for residents. “It has no noise and no vibration,” says Cyrus Claffey, the CEO of Clareo Networks, a real estate technology and design company that researched and planned the project for the Solarium’s developers. “It is bird friendly. And it has a great design. Power kicks in at a much lower windspeed than comparable products.”

WindTronicsThe gearless WindTronics system generates energy at the blades’ tips and can be installed on a rooftop.
This WindTronics windmill represents a new wave of technology innovation sweeping through the small wind industry. This innovation combined with national, regional and local incentives, as well as significant cost reductions in installations and products, is driving fast growth for small windmill makers. In 2009, despite an abysmal economy, the U.S. small wind market (turbines with rated capacities of 100 kilowatts or fewer) grew by 15 percent, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). That growth included an increase of 20.3 megawatts of new capacity and $82.4 million in sales.
The 2009 tally pushed the total installed capacity of small wind turbines in the United States to 100.2 megawatts. (That’s only equivalent to one-fifth the output of an average coal-fired power plant in the United States. But more than half of that capacity came online in only the last three years, making small wind one of the fastest-growing renewable energy resources around.) This adoption is being driven by government incentives, improved zoning procedures, consumers’ growing affinity for residential clean energy, and emerging financing mechanisms. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act expanded available federal investment tax credits for small windmills to 30 percent of the total cost of a wind system, an enormous boost that puts small wind on equal footing with the fast-growing residential solar industry.
“You can add the federal credit on top of state level rebates that can be 20 percent to 25 percent and that pushes the effective price of installing a small residential wind system down to $15,000 on average,” says Ron Stimmel, the legislative affairs manager for AWEA. With such a system, he notes, consumers are effectively pre-paying their electricity bills for decades. According to Stimmel, most windmills have a lifespan of 20 to 30 years.
To date, most of the growth in small wind in the United States has come in rural and semi-rural areas. This has been due to the requirement for many types of small windmills to sit atop poles that rise at least 40 feet above terra firma. Rural areas have long been more permissive of these types of installations. Looser zoning codes in those areas have allowed farmers to put up windmills without having to go through permitting hoops — or angering neighbors who might have to look at the spinning systems. Even in these types of rural regions, however, penetration remains below 5 percent and room for growth is enormous.
Some rural states have embraced wind at a policy level. Vermont, for example, became the first state to implement a feed-in tariff (FIT) for small wind systems. This tariff guarantees that small wind farmers can resell excess power back to the big utilities at above market rates.
According to AWEA, roughly half of all small wind power additions in 2009 were in the U.S., and the country has more than three times as many small wind manufacturing companies as the next closest competitor, Japan. While the U.S. may lead in small wind innovation, the rest of the world is looking to catch up. Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, China, Germany and Holland all have significant numbers of small wind technology companies.
At present, the United Kingdom and Canada have the most well-developed small wind markets outside of the United States. But 33 countries have put in place FITs for small wind power generated by homeowners and small busineses who wish to sell their power back into the grid. Such tariffs are designed to promote the installation of smaller scale renewable power projects. These countries include most of the developed world and emerging giants such as China and India, but also a number of developing economies including the Philippines and Kenya. International policy and finance bodies are pushing hard to bring small wind systems to isolated rural communities, particularly as a complement to solar installations. The World Bank has undertaken an aggressive program to push small wind to developing nations in South America, Asia and Africa as part of its Renewable Energy in the Rural Market initiative.
Many existing small wind companies have global dealer networks, and renewable energy project finance is now finally catching up, allowing dealers both in the U.S. and abroad to offer buyers financing options to defray costs or maximize tax benefits. “The primary step is going to be distributor financing,” says J.J. Carrasco, a principal at Atoll Financial, which signed a deal in 2009 to underwrite purchases of small wind turbines sold by Helix Wind. While Atoll plans to launch its projects in the U.S., “We are also interested in bringing U.S. energy applications in developing markets such as China and Brazil,” says Carrasco. Other investors and financiers, like Carrasco, have taken a keen interest in small wind. Over the past five years, venture and private equity investors have poured $252 million into U.S. small wind companies, hoping to reap substantial rewards as the market lights up and more homes, commercial buildings and farms turn to spinning blades to lighten their electric bills.
In the U.S., Stimmel and other industry experts believe farmers and others in out-of-the-way tracts will continue to put up tall poles and windmills at increasing rates, effectively hedging themselves against often volatile electricity prices. But smaller windmills are moving closer to the city centers in less dense metropolitan areas and are popping up like mushrooms in exurbs on smaller plots of land of less than an acre.
Take the case of Nancy Tabor. The co-owner of McClane Electric, a small alternative energy contracting firm located near Las Vegas, Nev., Tabor signed up as a dealer for Arizona-based Southwest Windpower in January, 2009, after the new federal tax credit for small wind became law. In the wake of the credits, Southwest Windpower secured a financing vehicle for its dealers, allowing homeowners to more easily borrow money to pay for wind turbine installations.
Several years earlier, the city of Las Vegas had passed new permitting procedures that made it much simpler for homeowners in some areas to receive approval for wind turbines on plots of land as small as a half-acre. Tabor has installed several units and says many more customers are eager to put up a windmill, pending the requisite collection of wind data for their proposed sites. “Out here, you have really good winds in many places, particularly with a little bit of elevation. It’s an excellent place for these types of projects,” says Tabor.
The arrival of more advanced systems, like the WindTronics device, could herald deeper penetration into urban areas previously considered unusable due to the chaotic nature of the breezes and the long periods of relative low winds. The WindTronics system, which resembles a fancy racing bike wheel, is vibration- and noise-free. Birds readily recognize the windmill, and it can be installed on a rooftop, eliminating the need for tall, unsightly poles. More importantly, according to WindTronics, it begins to generate power at wind speeds as low as two miles per hour, five miles per hour less than more traditional windmill designs, and it can continue to generate power at wind speeds as high as 42 miles per hour, nearly 15 miles per hour higher than standard shut-off speeds for most wind turbines.
WindTronics is hardly alone in trying to reinvent the small wind turbine. Hundreds of startups and incumbents right now are vying for traction in the nascent market. The vast majority of these small wind players are located in the U.S., making the country the capital of small wind innovation. Systems either proposed or in production range from very standard four- and three-blade systems, to bicycle-wheel designs like that of WindTronics, to vertical-axis windmills that catch wind power in spiraling motions. A novel wind-power startup based in Hawaii, Humdinger Wind Energy, seeks to produce wind power by capturing flutter and vibration in a stretched membrane, a method akin to capturing the energy produced by the snapping of a flag in the breeze.
This upswelling of innovation bodes well for the future of small wind and could help bring a wind-driven glow to many more homes and buildings in the not so distant future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
energybulletin.net 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10945)7/12/2010 7:19:33 PM
From: Wharf Rat   of 14949
 
Whither the weak in the post-peak oil world?
by Kurt Cobb
It is often said that the test of any civilization is how it treats its weakest members. Those who are compromised physically, mentally or emotionally create a sort of live-action Rorschach test. Do the weak among us evoke our compassion or our scorn? If we are among the lucky ones who have our full faculties, our reaction to the weak says more about our view of the disfigured, stricken and defeated parts of our own psyche--the parts which make us feel most vulnerable and ashamed--than it does about the weak among us.
Even if we feel compassion for those less fortunate, we are rarely called upon to find the limits of that compassion. In a post-peak oil world that will in all likelihood no longer be the case. Let me do a thought experiment involving two hypothetical post-peak oil communities. One has done little to prepare for the shocks ahead. This lack of preparation of necessity means that only the strong survive the depredations suffered during a serious decline in the energy available to society.
A second community has been careful to make many useful adaptations before the onset of energy decline. This preparation has created a solidarity in the community and the means to shield the weakest members of that community from the worst consequences of a shrinking energy budget.
In the first community, once the initial crisis passes, resources that might have been devoted to helping the weaker members of society can now devoted to the needs and aspirations of the strong. It is a troubling conundrum that the first community, the unprepared community, has through its lack of preparation and perhaps hardheartedness created a robust cohort of survivors.
But all is not what it seems. The first community has merely been hit early by declining resources through lack of foresight and preparation. That community has made decisions about the welfare of the weak in an ad hoc, haphazard manner. The results might not be due to hardheartedness at all, but plain disorganization and poor planning.
The one advantage of the second better prepared community will turn out to be a superior sense of solidarity that may make it easier to march together down the slope of energy decline with more mercy and fewer casualties. I say there is ultimately only one advantage in this case because the second community will likely face that same choices as the first community only later.
We will be tested early or late on the limits of our compassion for the weak. How much of society's dwindling resources will we be willing to devote to the needs of those with limitations: the elderly, the infirm, the emotionally disturbed, the developmentally disabled?
In the fossil fuel era we have congratulated ourselves on our enlightened treatment of the weak, not realizing that our vast and increasing energy surplus made it possible to expand their possibilities without risking the viability of society as a whole. No doubt technology helped, too. How many books would Stephen Hawking have written without the special technologies available to the handicapped, especially those linked to the computer? How many children might have been left to wither and die in institutions were it not for new methods of instruction practiced by trained specialists who have made possible the vastly increased range of activities and even a degree of independence for some of the most profoundly handicapped among us?
But that infrastructure of people and machines implies a certain energy input from society. Even though we know that the current infrastructure can make those who are weakest among us vastly more capable of participating in society, will we be able to resist the calls from those who will say that the weak are too much of a burden on society--that it is best for society to let them wither and die and to nourish the strong instead?
There is, of course, the rather difficult problem of determining what constitutes a strong person and what constitutes a weak person. In some cases it will simply be a question of social position and life chances, or in other words, luck. If we say a strong person is one who survives and a weak person is one who does not, we are now truly back to the most brutish morality possible, i.e, that might makes right.
And, there is another consideration. There is a need to keep one's community functioning through adequate levels of nutrition, health and shelter. This is a prerequisite for helping the weaker members of society. That means weighing the more diffuse compassion that one might feel for an entire community against the tangible and immediate needs of those suffering in front of one's eyes. This balancing act will tax the souls of even the most compassionate and enlightened leaders.
The post-peak oil era will indeed test us. It will test whether our compassion merely flows from the end of a pipeline or whether we can sustain it in the depths of our hearts as the fossil fuel era draws to a close.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
energybulletin.net 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10945)7/12/2010 7:55:46 PM
From: T L Comiskey   of 14949
 
Very COOL..<g>

smartplanet.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10946)7/13/2010 10:27:48 AM
From: Wharf Rat   of 14949
 
Is net energy peaking?
by Kurt Cobb
In the 1930s when wildcatters in Texas were striking oil almost as quickly as they could drill, the energy cost of getting 100 barrels of oil out of the ground was just one barrel. The net energy from this oil, that is, the energy available to the non-energy sectors of society, was very high. Today, oil companies have exhausted the easy-to-get oil and are obliged to drill in such places as the Arctic and in ocean waters that are a mile or two deep before drilling another one to three miles under the seabed.
Despite the enormous technological advances which have occurred in the industry since 1930, offshore and other harsh drilling environments are so demanding that the amount of energy required to extract oil from them has increased. It is believed that the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil now yields only between 11 and 18 barrels of oil. In fact, what is called energy return on investment (EROI), essentially, the amount of energy we get back in the form of oil for every unit of energy we expend, has been dropping consistently for many years.
There are various methods for calculating EROI which is why a range of ratios is often quoted in response to a question about the EROI of any particular energy source. Regardless of method the EROI trend for fossil fuels is down. Obviously, if the EROI for any fuel were to reach 1:1 or fall below it, it would cease to be a fuel. If the EROI is greater than one, then we can say that the fuel or energy system provides net energy to society. In other words, after we subtract the energy needed to extract, transport, refine and deliver that energy to where it's needed, we have some surplus that can actually be used.
What EROI tells us then is the proportion of the energy embodied in a fuel or energy system available to the non-energy sectors of society. What we'd like to know is the total net energy available to society expressed in some suitable physical units such as quads (quadrillion British Thermal Unit or BTUs). The net energy of any system, say, a hydroelectric dam or a wind generator, is dependent on location; water levels or average wind speeds; the intensity of (energy-consuming) maintenance; and so on. This same principle applies to fossil fuels as illustrated for oil above. This is critical since 86 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. There is, however, no average EROI which we can calculate for all sources of one type of energy. Coal delivered to a nearby electric generating plant will have a different EROI than coal which must be transported hundreds or even thousands of miles before being burned. We can make some educated guesses about EROI for a particular type of resource, but the complete data for society as a whole are just not there.
Still, the principle is sound. Society runs on net energy. If net energy is declining for fossil fuels, that implies that even increases in total extraction may not offset the growing amount of energy needed by the energy industry. In other words rising tonnage of coal, barrels of oil or cubic feet of natural gas could be accompanied by decreases in total energy available to the non-energy producing part of the economy. Has this ever happened? Apparently, it has.
Richard Heinberg reports that coal quality (i.e., the amount of heat one can get out of a given amount of coal) has been declining in the United States since 1955. This is in part due to the depletion of high quality coal, mostly anthracite, and the reliance on lower grades of western bituminous and sub-bituminous coal. Thus, net energy from coal in the United States appears to have peaked in 1998 even as tonnage has increased in subsequent years.
We are told that new unconventional reserves of fossil fuels will pave the way to an energy future still dominated by those fuels. Even if we set aside the question of whether it is wise to burn such fuels in a world facing climate change, the fossil fuel optimists are still pretending that net energy doesn't matter, only gross extraction rates. When confronted with this issue, they often respond that new (yet-to-be invented!) technology will increase the net energy from such unconventional reserves as tar sands, heavy oil, deepwater oil and shale gas. But this flies in the face of the general trend in fossil fuel EROI which has been declining even as advanced technologies for exploration, extraction and refining have been deployed. That would imply that geological constraints are now winning the race with technology.
Even the most sanguine fossil fuel optimists admit that all fossil fuels will eventually peak in their rate of production and then decline. It is worth remembering that the point at which society will start experiencing problems with fossil fuel supplies in not when they are exhausted, but when their rate of production begins to decline. This is true because our financial system and society are addicted to growth, and that growth depends currently on a commensurate growth in fossil fuel supplies.
By extension and using our understanding of net energy, it is possible to see that society will start experiencing problems not when fossil fuel supplies peak, but when the net energy from fossil fuels peaks. That peak logically must come before the peak in gross extractions of fossil fuels because human societies have exploited the easy-to-get fossil fuels first. The more difficult and energy-intensive resources await our exploitation, and that exploitation will become increasingly energy-intensive as we repeat the pattern of extracting the easiest-to-get portion of the difficult-to-get resources first.
So, even if one believes, for example, that the rate of oil production will not peak for another couple of decades, the peak in oil-based energy available to society, that is net energy, will come sooner, perhaps much sooner. There is no definitive way to tell when net energy from fossil fuels will peak or whether it has already peaked. Much more research needs to be done, and soon! But the logic of net energy tells us that we should view the transition away from fossil fuels to alternatives with much greater urgency even if the optimists are right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
energybulletin.net 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10946)7/13/2010 10:33:56 AM
From: Wharf Rat   of 14949
 
Is net energy peaking?
by Kurt Cobb
In the 1930s when wildcatters in Texas were striking oil almost as quickly as they could drill, the energy cost of getting 100 barrels of oil out of the ground was just one barrel. The net energy from this oil, that is, the energy available to the non-energy sectors of society, was very high. Today, oil companies have exhausted the easy-to-get oil and are obliged to drill in such places as the Arctic and in ocean waters that are a mile or two deep before drilling another one to three miles under the seabed.
Despite the enormous technological advances which have occurred in the industry since 1930, offshore and other harsh drilling environments are so demanding that the amount of energy required to extract oil from them has increased. It is believed that the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil now yields only between 11 and 18 barrels of oil. In fact, what is called energy return on investment (EROI), essentially, the amount of energy we get back in the form of oil for every unit of energy we expend, has been dropping consistently for many years.
There are various methods for calculating EROI which is why a range of ratios is often quoted in response to a question about the EROI of any particular energy source. Regardless of method the EROI trend for fossil fuels is down. Obviously, if the EROI for any fuel were to reach 1:1 or fall below it, it would cease to be a fuel. If the EROI is greater than one, then we can say that the fuel or energy system provides net energy to society. In other words, after we subtract the energy needed to extract, transport, refine and deliver that energy to where it's needed, we have some surplus that can actually be used.
What EROI tells us then is the proportion of the energy embodied in a fuel or energy system available to the non-energy sectors of society. What we'd like to know is the total net energy available to society expressed in some suitable physical units such as quads (quadrillion British Thermal Unit or BTUs). The net energy of any system, say, a hydroelectric dam or a wind generator, is dependent on location; water levels or average wind speeds; the intensity of (energy-consuming) maintenance; and so on. This same principle applies to fossil fuels as illustrated for oil above. This is critical since 86 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. There is, however, no average EROI which we can calculate for all sources of one type of energy. Coal delivered to a nearby electric generating plant will have a different EROI than coal which must be transported hundreds or even thousands of miles before being burned. We can make some educated guesses about EROI for a particular type of resource, but the complete data for society as a whole are just not there.
Still, the principle is sound. Society runs on net energy. If net energy is declining for fossil fuels, that implies that even increases in total extraction may not offset the growing amount of energy needed by the energy industry. In other words rising tonnage of coal, barrels of oil or cubic feet of natural gas could be accompanied by decreases in total energy available to the non-energy producing part of the economy. Has this ever happened? Apparently, it has.
Richard Heinberg reports that coal quality (i.e., the amount of heat one can get out of a given amount of coal) has been declining in the United States since 1955. This is in part due to the depletion of high quality coal, mostly anthracite, and the reliance on lower grades of western bituminous and sub-bituminous coal. Thus, net energy from coal in the United States appears to have peaked in 1998 even as tonnage has increased in subsequent years.
We are told that new unconventional reserves of fossil fuels will pave the way to an energy future still dominated by those fuels. Even if we set aside the question of whether it is wise to burn such fuels in a world facing climate change, the fossil fuel optimists are still pretending that net energy doesn't matter, only gross extraction rates. When confronted with this issue, they often respond that new (yet-to-be invented!) technology will increase the net energy from such unconventional reserves as tar sands, heavy oil, deepwater oil and shale gas. But this flies in the face of the general trend in fossil fuel EROI which has been declining even as advanced technologies for exploration, extraction and refining have been deployed. That would imply that geological constraints are now winning the race with technology.
Even the most sanguine fossil fuel optimists admit that all fossil fuels will eventually peak in their rate of production and then decline. It is worth remembering that the point at which society will start experiencing problems with fossil fuel supplies in not when they are exhausted, but when their rate of production begins to decline. This is true because our financial system and society are addicted to growth, and that growth depends currently on a commensurate growth in fossil fuel supplies.
By extension and using our understanding of net energy, it is possible to see that society will start experiencing problems not when fossil fuel supplies peak, but when the net energy from fossil fuels peaks. That peak logically must come before the peak in gross extractions of fossil fuels because human societies have exploited the easy-to-get fossil fuels first. The more difficult and energy-intensive resources await our exploitation, and that exploitation will become increasingly energy-intensive as we repeat the pattern of extracting the easiest-to-get portion of the difficult-to-get resources first.
So, even if one believes, for example, that the rate of oil production will not peak for another couple of decades, the peak in oil-based energy available to society, that is net energy, will come sooner, perhaps much sooner. There is no definitive way to tell when net energy from fossil fuels will peak or whether it has already peaked. Much more research needs to be done, and soon! But the logic of net energy tells us that we should view the transition away from fossil fuels to alternatives with much greater urgency even if the optimists are right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
energybulletin.net 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10949)7/13/2010 10:36:03 AM
From: T L Comiskey   of 14949
 
Amazon Storm Killed Half a Billion Trees

LiveScience.com –


A violent storm ripped through the Amazon forest in 2005 and single-handedly killed half a billion trees, a new study reveals.
The study is the first to produce an actual tree body count after an Amazon storm.
An estimated 441 million to 663 million trees were destroyed across the whole Amazon basin during the 2005 storm, a much greater number than previously suspected.
In some areas of the forest, up to 80 percent of the trees were killed by the storm. A severe drought was previously blamed for the region's tree loss in 2005.
"We can't attribute [the increased] mortality to just drought in certain parts of the basin - we have solid evidence that there was a strong storm that killed a lot of trees over a large part of the Amazon," said forest ecologist and study researcher Jeffrey Chambers of Tulane University in New Orleans, La.
From Jan. 16 to Jan. 18, 2005, a squall line - a long line of severe thunderstorms - 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) long and 124 miles (200 km) wide crossed the whole Amazon basin. The storm's strong winds, with speeds of up to 90 mph (145 kph), uprooted or snapped trees in half.
When trees die, they release their stored carbon into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. In a vicious cycle, these storms could become more frequent in the future due to climate change.
To calculate the number of trees killed by the storm, the researchers used satellite images, field studies and computer models. They looked for patches of wind-toppled trees, which allowed them to distinguish from trees killed by the drought.
"If a tree dies from a drought, it generally dies standing. It looks very different from trees that die snapped by a storm," Chambers said.
The storm wiped out between 300,000 and 500,000 trees in the area of Manaus, Brazil, alone. The number of trees killed by the 2005 storm was equal to 30 percent of the total human-caused deforestation in that same year for the Manaus region. The researchers used the tree loss in Manaus to estimate the tree loss across the entire Amazon basin.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10949)7/14/2010 9:51:33 AM
From: Wharf Rat1 Recommendation   of 14949
 
Texas Oil Baron Is Promoting Solar Energy
By TODD WOODY
Published: July 13, 2010

J. R. EWING returned to the small screen on Tuesday, and the boys down at the Cattlemen’s Club just might need a double bourbon when they hear what he has to say.

Larry Hagman, the actor who played the scheming Texas oilman on the long-running (1978-1991) television show “Dallas,” is reprising his role as J. R. in an advertising campaign to promote solar energy and SolarWorld, a German photovoltaic module maker.

“In the past, it was always about the oil,” Mr. Hagman says in a TV commercial that was unveiled Tuesday at the Intersolar conference in San Francisco.

“The oil was flowing and so was the money. Too dirty. I quit it years ago,” he growls as he saunters past a portrait of a grinning J. R. in younger days and a TV showing images of an offshore oil rig and blackened waters.

Putting on a 10-gallon hat, he heads outside into the sunshine and gazes at a solar array on the roof of the house. “But I’m still in the energy business,” he says. “There’s always a better alternative.”

“Shine, baby, shine,” he says, ending the spot with his trademark J. R. cackle.

In real life, Mr. Hagman, 78, lives on an estate in the Southern California town of Ojai, where he installed a 94-kilowatt solar system, thought to be the world’s largest residential array, several years ago. The rooftop system, which includes SolarWorld panels, cost $750,000, although Mr. Hagman said he received a $310,000 rebate.

“I’m a manufacturer of electricity,” Mr. Hagman said in an interview this week. “I use all that electricity and return the extra to the grid.”

He said the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico prompted him to bring back the J. R. character. “With all that oil gushing away in the gulf, I figured it was time to call for a new direction in where we’re getting our energy,” the actor said. “Since Sarah Palin is saying, ‘Drill, baby, drill,’ I’m saying, ‘Shine, baby, shine.’ It’s a lot cheaper and cleaner.”

Mr. Hagman also serves on the board of the Solar Electric Light Fund, a nonprofit group that builds solar systems in poverty-stricken areas of the world.

SolarWorld donated solar panels for the fund’s work in Haiti after the earthquake there in January. On Tuesday, the company said it would give an additional 100 kilowatts of panels to provide electricity for at least five health clinics.

In return, Mr. Hagman made the commercials for SolarWorld, which began appearing online on Tuesday and will run nationally and in regional markets in coming weeks.

SolarWorld did not use an advertising agency to develop the spots. Instead, Mr. Hagman and Milan Nitzschke, SolarWorld’s head of marketing, co-wrote the script, according to Mr. Nitzschke. He said SolarWorld hired a German director, Sönke Wortmann, to shoot the commercials in Nice, France, about a month ago.

“It was quite an unusual way to do it, but I’ve known Larry for about three years and we both had an idea for how to do the commercial,” Mr. Nitzschke said.

SolarWorld, which is based in Germany but operates factories in California and Oregon, is just the latest solar company to run a prominent advertising campaign. Yingli, a previously little known Chinese solar panel maker, was an official sponsor of the World Cup. Its logo adorned South African soccer stadiums and was seen by millions of television viewers.

Since Yingli began selling solar panels in the United States last year, it has captured about a third of the California market.

SolarWorld wants to get the word out that while its headquarters is in Germany, it is manufacturing solar panels in the United States and providing jobs for Americans, said Ben Santarris, a spokesman for its American operations.

“The SolarWorld name has only been in this market since 2006,” he said, “We have competitors with American names that don’t produce anything in this market.”

This is not the first time Mr. Hagman has returned to his “Dallas” character in commercials. In the 1980s, he appeared as J. R. in television ads for BVD underwear. More recently, he reprised the character in a spot for British Gas, in which the oil tycoon praised a homeowner’s ability to control energy use with the company’s technology.

Mr. Hagman acknowledged rather gleefully that his advocacy of renewable energy might create some cognitive dissonance for those who associate him with a rapacious Texas oil baron. But he noted that there were barrels of money to be made from the sun as well.

“The thing is, these solar panels are manufactured domestically and can provide a lot of jobs for soldiers returning from all those wars we have fought,” he said.
nytimes.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10951)7/14/2010 9:53:00 AM
From: Wharf Rat   of 14949
 
$200 Million for Smart Grid Ideas
By TOM ZELLER JR.
General Electric, in partnership with four prominent venture capital firms, announced a $200 million competition for clean-energy innovation funds on Tuesday.



The program, called the Ecomagnination Challenge, is aimed at fostering ideas that will help speed up the development of the so-called “smart grid” — that is, what energy experts say is a much-needed digital upgrade to the nation’s aging and largely analog electric system.

In announcing the program, G.E.’s chief executive, Jeff Immelt, said the company was hoping to make resources available to those with the most innovative ideas for improving energy creation and distribution in the United States — and ultimately around the globe.

“We know how to make things, we know how to sell things, we know how to service things,” Mr. Immelt said during a panel discussion in San Francisco on Tuesday morning. “We have a big brand, so let’s go.”

From now until Sept. 30, budding smart-grid entrepreneurs will be able to submit their proposals in one of three areas that the investors see as central to ramping up use of renewables:

• Maximizing penetration of clean energy into the grid.

• Improving the efficiency of the grid.

• Helping electricity customers use energy more wisely.

An “evaluation committee” comprising representatives from GE and its investment partners — which include RockPort Capital, K.P.C.B., Foundation Capital and Emerald Technology — will determine which ideas merit financing and, perhaps, a partnership with G.E. in developing and distributing the idea.

Visitors to the program’s Web site will also be able to vote for their favorite ideas. The most popular, pending the panel’s review, will receive a cash award of $50,000, and five submissions will receive $500,000 each in cash, along with consideration for further collaboration and commercial development.

The growth of renewable energy presents a variety of challenges for the nation’s electric grid and for the Obama administration, which in last year’s stimulus package allocated $11 billion in grants and loan guarantees to go toward upgrading it.

And it’s not just a matter of transmission capacity — although this is certainly a significant issue. A smarter electric grid would, presumably, give ratepayers greater control over their own energy usage and costs. It would also allow utilities and transmission authorities to more efficiently and discretely manage the flow of electricity as it courses through the system — something that could go a long way toward curbing overall energy waste and reducing the nation’s carbon footprint.

“With this challenge we are inviting others to work with our partners and us to accelerate progress in creating a cleaner, more efficient and economically viable grid,” Mr. Immelt said. “We want to jump-start new ideas and deploy them on a scale that will modernize the electrical grid around the world.”

By 2:30 p.m. in New York, four ideas had already been submitted — including one from Krishna Venkata Rama of Houston.

“The soda vending machines use large amounts of electricity 24 hours a day,” Mr. Venkata Rama explained. “What if we have an instant soda chiller which takes less than 60 seconds to chill the soda. We can eliminate huge amounts of electricity across the world.”
green.blogs.nytimes.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10951)7/14/2010 10:21:22 AM
From: T L Comiskey   of 14949
 
an..Oh so
slight improvement...

nsidc.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.