Limonene

A relatively new biofuel is called d-Limonene and it has many essential uses,
such as pest control, as a solvent and as a terpene based fuel or gas.



The wikipedia article has some insightful information:
Limonene Wiki Entry

Image Source:
buy-lemons-online.com

I hope to be able to post some more resources about this fuel here soon.
I understand it can be synthesized so that may be one way of cheaply producing
this fuel without affecting food prices or sources.

Here is a good video for those of you familiar with organic chemistry and wish
to make their own limonene extraction for experimentation:


The green method of extracting:

New Inventions: Machine Reverts Plastic Back To Oil (English subtitles)

New Mass. Offshore Wind Farm

BOSTON – A federal agency has approved a construction plan for a wind farm off the Massachusetts coast, clearing the way for work to begin on the nation's first offshore wind farm as early as this fall.
U.S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar made the announcement about the Cape Wind project in Boston on Tuesday. He says the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement has approved the plan.
Cape Wind plans to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. But the wind farm still could face legal action from opponents who question the cost to ratepayers and the potential impact on wildlife.
Gov. Deval Patrick says in a statement that federal approval moves the region a step closer to benefiting from the clean energy and jobs that will be created by the project.

Source:
The associated press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_re_us/us_cape_wind

Japan

BANGKOK – Worldwide calls to curb nuclear power amid Japan's plant crisis could be bad news for the fight against global warming — unless nations finally go all-out to tap wind, solar and other clean, renewable energy, climate change negotiators and activists say.

If countries scrap nuclear plants, which emit no greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, they may turn to the fossil fuels that experts call the main culprit behind climate change. Environmental activists say the tragedy could provide an opportunity to strike a decisive blow against both.

"It's a false choice to give the public an alternative between a climate change disaster or a nuclear disaster. We need renewable energy," said Tove Maria Ryding of the environmental group Greenpeace. "Now, we can either have a kick back or a leap forward."

Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s top climate change official, said that all countries are reviewing nuclear policies in the wake of Japan's crisis.
"It remains to be seen what they decide," she said at a 173-nation conference running through Friday in Bangkok. The gathering aims to build on a climate summit held last December in Cancun, Mexico.

Figueres and others are concerned that pledges made by governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so far equal only 60 percent of what scientists say is required by 2020 to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 F) above preindustrial levels.

A swing back to fossil fuels presumably would worsen the effects of climate change, which many scientists say causes a melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, a rise in sea levels and extreme weather.

Before a tsunami ravaged Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex last month, the Paris-based International Energy Agency had estimated that nuclear plants would add 360 gigawatts of generating capacity to the global inventory by 2035.
After the accident, that projection has been cut in half, agency chief economist Fatih Birol said, citing the pressure to halt new nuclear plants and phase out older ones sooner than planned.

The gap is likely to be filled equally by renewable energy, coal and gas. The result will mean an additional 5 percent — or 500 million tons — of carbon dioxide emitted globally by 2035, Birol said in an interview.

"The doors are fast closing on the 2-degree target, and with a decrease in nuclear energy it makes it even more difficult," Birol said. "It's all bad news — cost of energy will increase, energy security and diversification decrease and carbon emission will go up."

Experts wonder whether countries really will slash nuclear power as much as their initial reactions to the Fukushima tragedy suggest, and if so, whether they will they speed toward renewables or simply burn more coal.

Ryding said she is concerned that several governments, already backtracking on earlier pledges to reduce emissions, may use Fukushima as an argument to do even less.

Birol of the IEA, which advises governments on energy policy, says some world leaders may have been "too abrupt" in moving away from nuclear energy in wake of the Japanese disaster.

"When we have all the input from Fukushima, I am sure that policy makers will take another look, especially given the big economic stakes," he says.
The scene is hardly uniform around the globe, where there are currently 507 nuclear power plants in operation or under construction and where oil, coal and gas still
provide the bulk of energy in most countries.

In Japan, climate negotiators expect a greater, short-term reliance on fossil fuels to fill the nuclear power gap and are concerned the country could reduce its pledge to cut emissions by 2020 — from 25 percent down to 20 percent.
But Prime Minister Naoto Kan said alternative new energy would become "a major pillar" after the Fukushima accident.

"Taking this as a lesson, we will lead the world in clean energy such as solar and biomass, as we take a step toward resurrection," he told lawmakers last week.
China, the world's no. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases, has ambitious plans to move away from coal plants that provide 70 percent of its energy and go toward clean alternatives. It may also scale back its nuclear program in light of the Japan emergency, Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua said.

"I believe this accident will have some impact on the development of nuclear power not only in China, but also the rest of the world," he told reporters in Australia last week.

U.S. President Barack Obama has defended nuclear energy, but also strongly supports development of solar cells, clean coal and biofuel technology.
The most dramatic developments are likely to occur in Western Europe. Germany had planned to phase out nuclear power over 25 years. But the Fukushima crisis — which Chancellor Angela Merkel called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions" — has accelerated those plans.

The government almost immediately took seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months of safety checks. Most of Germany's leaders now seem determined to swiftly abolish nuclear power, possibly by 2020, and are willing to pay for intensive development of renewable energy, already a major industry in Germany.

The country currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power — about as much as the U.S. Germany's Environment Ministry says that in 10 years, renewable energy will account for 40 percent.

That kind of plan would not work for countries such as France, which relies on nuclear for 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting, but could provide a map for other countries, activists say.

Sven Teske, Greenpeace's renewable energy director, said Germany was able to fill its energy gap left by idled nuclear plants with wind and solar power, though it has had to import some energy from nuclear-reliant neighbors.

"Switching to renewable is a matter of years, not decades," Teske said.
The International Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body set up by the UN and winner of a Nobel Peace Prize, says a global phase-out of nuclear power plants is feasible at moderate costs and without taking away from climate change efforts.
Artur Runge-Metzger, a European Union climate change official in Bangkok, said the issue is often seen in terms of "two kinds of evils."

"On the one hand you say we can't use nuclear energy because we might have nuclear disasters, but everybody at the table is also saying if we have climate change it is also going to lead to disaster," he said. "So we have to find a way forward."

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_re_as/as_nuclear_climate_change

Solar Collectors

A wiser way to use your solar system.

Further proof the car companies just don't get it.

Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Washington — Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle makes economic "sense."The extended-range plug-in electric vehicle is on the cover of the April issue — the influential magazine's annual survey of vehicles — but the GM vehicle comes in for criticism.

"When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto testing center at a meeting with reporters here. "This is going to be a tough sell to the average consumer."
The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.
GM spokesman Greg Martin noted that it's been an extremely harsh winter — and as a Volt driver he said he's getting 29-33 miles on electric range. But he noted that in more moderate recent weather, the range jumped to 40 miles on electric range or higher.

Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense for some trips.
"If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more miles per gallon than the Volt does," Champion said.
But GM has noted that most Americans can avoid using gasoline for most regular commuting with the Volt, while its gasoline engine can allow the freedom to travel farther, if needed.
The magazine has put about 2,500 miles on its Volt. It paid $48,700, including a $5,000 markup by a Chevy dealer.

Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.
He was said the five hour time to recharge the Volt was "annoying" and was also critical of the power of the Volt heating system.
"You have seat heaters, which keep your body warm, but your feet get cold and your hands get cold," Champion said.
Consumer Reports will release a full road test of the Volt later this year and will update it.

Champion praised the heater on the all-electric Nissan Leaf - which Consumer Reports borrowed from the Japanese automaker -- but said it also got very short ranges in very cold weather.
On one commute, his range in a Leaf was at 43 miles when he turned onto an eight-mile stretch of highway, but it fell from 43 to 16 miles after eight miles at 70 mph.
"If it keeps on going down at this rate, will I get to work," Champion said.
Champion said in an interview he thinks the Volt "will sell the quantity that they want to sell to the people that really want it."

Despite his criticism of the Volt, Champion praised its acceleration and acknowledged that under certain driving cycles, consumers could mostly avoid using gasoline. The magazine noted the Volt is nicely equipped and has a "taut yet supple ride."
But he said there are a lot of trade-offs.
"They are going to live with the compromises the vehicle delivers," Champion said. "When you look at it from a purely logical point of view, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense."


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110228/AUTO01/102280401/Consumer-Reports--GM’s-Volt-‘doesn’t-really-make-a-lot-of-sense’#ixzz1FPTmnCmT

Energy Cartell

Language: Deutsch, English

The Cartel between Energy Producers and Power Grid Providers
How electricity suppliers pocket high yields at the expense of consumers. -
and how they block the expansion of alternative energy.




As Mr. Roland Heineck discovered an innovative quotation of SenerTec in summer 2003 he was absolutely avid. Their equipment was able to heat houses of every size could reduce the CO2-emissions to 47% and save thousands of euros per year. The mystery about it was a coupling of heat and electricity production. That raises the effectiveness in comparance to a normal large power plant merely producing electricity from 60% to full 80% or even 90%. Unfortunately the Chemnitzian electricity supplier Enviam, a subsidiary of RWE, did not like it like this and sued Heineck without further ado. He would operate a public electricity supply because he also supplied his renters but had no concession for it.

However this is just one of many examples of a comprehensive blocking strategy of power suppliers against environmentally friendly and renewable energies. Connection refusal and buying out with low prices are just two further methods in preventing private equipment owners to contribute in power supply. The previously described lawsuit could fortunately be settled in the meantime although it took two years to examine the test case.

Since the year 2000 the federal government of Germany funds solar, wind energy, biogas and geothermal energy with 20 years guaranteed reimbursement rates which decrease on from the date of construction. This law makes the construction of equipment for renewable energies among any also for private people interesting while the big energy suppliers have favored to keep their already expensed coal and nuclear power plants in operation generating higher yields than new investments. The reimbursement rates for private energy infeed are apportioned over all power customers. That way the price for a kilowatt hour of electricity has rosen at 0,75¢ while the wholesale price has dropped by 10-20¢ by the increased competition of small energy producers. Finally enterprises as well as private households could save from 2 up to 3 milliards of euros at an increase of just 1,1 mrd. euros in cost.

Another area of application are wind power stations on the open sea. On the ocean the wind blows more than twice as strong; an almost inexhaustible source of power with an eight times higher energy revenue. In difference to windmills situated on the mainland the construction of wind power plants in deep water only pays off in high quantity. In the search of financially sound associate partners it was easily possible for Eon to buy up all important German projects for offshore wind energy like in the Arkona-basin SouthEast, 35 kliometers in the North of the island Rügen, in front of the Holsteinian Baltic Sea coast and another one in front of the island Amrun. At first the managers of Eon gave the impression that they would really be interested in an early implementation; in reality they have just acquired these projects to let them rest. That way Eon was free of disagreeable competitors.

Although the European energy markets are formally liberalized since 1999 a few oligopolys can largely prevent true competition. Only that way it was possible that in the years from 2000 to 2007 in Germany the energy companies could mark up prices up to 40% while the costs for energy production stayed almost the same. Consequently the revenue of the big power providers have straightly exploded. The Eon AG f.i. could triple their earnings to 7 milliards of euro.

That could mainly happen because the oligopolists kept their control over the power grid as well as power production preventing true competition. They simply needed to provide low energy infeed pay rates so that power production for third party suppliers did not pay off as they should. In the Netherlands where the power grid is in the hand of the state more than 40% of all electricity is also produced in power plants that supply with calefactory; in Denmark the rate is about 50%. In Germany the fraction of combined heat and power is just no more than 12%. In front of the Holsteinian North Sea coast the EON-trust denies the pressingly necessary upgrading of the power grid so that total wind power plants need to be shut down on strong wind.

If the proposals of the Dutch economic politician and officiating EU-commissioner for competition Neelie Kroes as well as her colleague Andris Piebalgs competent for energy could be accomplished then power companies would have to sell their power grid for electricity and petroleum gas EU-wide to the state or some other neutral company which are not involved in power or gas production. That way it seems completely inscrutable that even the climate-chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel and her vice president, foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have thwarted the plans of the EU protecting the powerful of the energy-trusts by making use of their veto-right. Many EU-countries have been defending the energy trusts against the interest of their voters who are paying too high energy prices and out of all also against a responsible environmental politic.

To the astonishment of the trust lobbyists EU-commissioner Neelie Kroes could not be overawed by the resistance in EU member states. In deed EU-appointees could find massive offenses against anti-trust law by search missions in four German energy companies. As a penalty of milliards of euros had been impending to the EON-trust at the beginning of 2008 they agreed on a compensation which obligated EON to sell part of its power grid and a few power plants. Unflinchingly chancellor Angela Merkel announced thereupon she wanted to save the other power companies from a spin-off of their power grid.

Furthermore multiple former SPD economics ministers and permanent secretaries have been in the attendance of RWE or EON and have actively been involved in developing their monopolic power. At the same time labor unions close to the SPD like IG Bergbau, Chemie, Energie und ver.di eisern have been defending the old conglomerate structures. In February 2007 service labor union organized a demonstration with 2000 employees of coal mining companies in Berlin against climate protection. That even though alternative energies have created countless jobs and additional value in their own country.

The backing of the energy-trust seems even less understandable as even the German bank has taken a firm stand by demanding "a full separation between power production and power grid". Given the fact that high yields could only be achieved by the monopolic market power of the trust the question of property must be seen from a different viewpoint. The double control over power grid and power production has endowed the trust with a power that has caused continuing ecological and economical damage.

Independent power grid suppliers would also rectify the present bottlenecks at country borders; in their own interest. If the access to the power grid were free the "Desertec-Plan" of the Club of Rome would have a real chance of realization which allots the construction of solar-thermical power plants in Northern African states. The transmission technique for electricity over long distances is available.


In contrast to the claims of trust lobbyists it would be absolutely possible to achieve a power production rate of 100% for alternative energies. Once the lobbyists have claimed that at most 4% of all energy production could be covered by alternative energy which has already been refuted by renewable energy rate of 14% in the year 2007. On the one hand a Europe wide aggregation of solar and wind power producers could balance peaks and calms in energy production, on the other hand we do also have the possibility to store electrical energy. Already in operation are reservoir power stations which can pump up water if less energy should be consumed than produced at the moment in order to let it flow down again as soon as more energy is needed. Subterraneous compressed air reservoirs, H20 electrolysis for fuel cells or flywheels could serve a similar function. With increasing proliferation of solar panels the production price falls so that we can expect solar energy not to be more expensive than other electricity by 2015 provided that the current growth continues. Critics claim this point could even be reached much earlier thinking that solar industry would defer lowering their prices in order to profit from subventions for a longer time. An EU-wide consistent law for supporting solar industry would be desirable in this regard.

Lobbyists often claim that windmills would destroy the landscape although the surface mining of coal in Germany is nothing better in deed destroying cultivated land and causing inhabitants to be dislodged. In the 90ies responsible managers have tried to obviate the alternative energy infeed law in vain up to the European Court of Justice. Renewable energies simply don`t seem to fit into their business conception.

Lars Göran Josefsson, chairman of Vatenfall likes to pretend environmental awareness, points out the threats of global warming and engages as advisor of Angela Merkel in climate change policy. Simultaneously he adopts a hard line as second largest climate pest in Europe with his firm. Three of his East German power plants burn especially polluting brown coal and thereby release per kilowatt hour more than twice as much CO2 as a petroleum gas power plant would do. In spite of this one further brown coal power plant in the Sachsian Boxberg is in construction; two hard coal power plants are planned. If these plans would be realized Germany failed its goals in emission reductions for the year 2020 merely because of these plans. Even environment minister Sigmar Gabriel had to confess this after Greenpeace kept asking toughly. Even a replacement of both brown coal plants currently in operation by the newly planned ones, which is not discussed at all, would increase the capacity per about one third.

A technique which is not yet available serves as excuse for the new coal power plants. This technique would increase the coal consumption and would likely double production costs. The CSS-technology (Carbon Capture and Storage) allots the separation of up to 90% of all arosen CO2 by transporting it to a disposal repository. Apart from the fact that we will never be able to make sure that the CO2 will stay stored forever in the geological target formation (time bomb?!) an enormous safety problem would arise when it comes to backfit already built coal power plants with this technology. CO2 is heavier than air and on from a fraction of 8% in breathed air lethal. Not to imagine what could happen on a leak in the CO2-pipeline. One possible solution for this problem would be to regulate that new coal power plants need to be equipped with the CSS-technology right when they are built so that they will be built on the geological formation that should serve as disposal repository so that no risky line network or even a CO2-transport by trucks is necessary.

The possible construction of the intended coal power plants would even worse have been the wrong example to the international community as Germany could already establish as a leading nation in climate protection. The ability to retrofit power plants with CSS is simply no excuse for the construction of new coal power plants. Possible subventions of CSS-technology are better saved for programs like Desertec which has in the meantime luckily been recognized. It allots the construction of solar-thermical power plants in Northern Africa for Europe. The advancement of domestic alternative energy, a higher efficiency or cogeneration of power and heat are also important issues. Today it is already possible to build houses that save more energy than they consume. Housing advancement should be adjusted to climate protection.

If we had only used the same high subventions for renewable energies as we have used them for nuclear power production they could even today take competition with fossil energy carriers. A crucial point in the enforcement of renewable energies are not so much subventions or the many possible technical improvements but also an effective anti trust policy including the separation of power grid and power production resulting in better energy infeed pay rates which allow everyone to participate in power production. In the USA customers have even been raped by intentionally shutting down power plants to make energy prices rise.

Nonetheless chancellor Angela Merkel has highly merited in climate protection as it was her who first put the global climate change on the agenda of the G8-summit in 2007 after years of harmful climate political cessation. Only by her commitment the climate change deniers could be defeated. Angela Merkel has studied physics and therefore knows what she is doing.
print version



[1] Harald Schumann, Christian Grefe: Der globale Countdown .- Kiepenheuer & Witsch 2009
[2] bspw.: Sharon Begley: Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine .- Newsweek, 13.August 2007
[3] Artikel bei ZDF
[5-N] verschiedene aktuelle Artikeln im Internet zum Thema, September 2009.
[4] Ökostrom Initiative von Google
more information: look for links in other articles at www.elstel.com, Weed Online
*** other interesting content from elstel ***

The Coalition of Climate Change Denyers:

It was the year 1987 as the German Parliament founded a commission with the title "foresight to protect the atmosphere of the earth " with regards to the greenhouse effect. In 1992 a document of UNO-conference in Rio de Janeiro warned against a "dangerous perturbance of the climate system". It remains to put at question how the following 15 years have been lost which would have been so important for a proper climate protection.

During this time the oil, coal and automotive industry of the USA could block any policy for reducing commodity usage by the expense of milliards. This is comprehensively documented [2]. Lobbyists succeeded to make the issue disappear via disinformation and pseudo-science very similar to the way the tobacco industry has succeeded to play down the risks of smoking although they must have known studies from before of World War II which have unambiguously documented the risks of smoking.

Corrupted and blind-stitched deferred or self claimed climate scientists have secretly distributed bloodcurdling but imaginative counter thesis to climate change. The lobbyists could win distinguished news papers in the USA like the New York Times or the Washington Post describing climate change as a thesis instead of as a fact with marginal uncertainties. Staged interviews with environmental advocates were just one of many methods to bias public opinion. At least they succeeded to put a bagman of the oil industry into the White House who censored scientific publications. Not even today in the year 2009 lobbyist resile from sending falsified documents in the name of well known organizations to Congressman to sabotage Obama`s climate politic.


Renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Research says CSS is no solution:

Q19: Could we not just burn all available fossil fuel reserves, provided that we capture and store the CO2 with carbon capture and storage (CCS) ?

A: If the carbon is safely and permanently sequestered using CCS technology, then about 85‐90% of emissions from burning fossil fuels could be avoided. Thus, the early large scale deployment of carbon sequestration and storage (CSS) would increase the allowable fossil fuel extraction.

Word of caution: However, this technology is as yet unproven on a commercial scale, entails risks and has significant infrastructure requirements with multi‐year lead times. Thus, further investment into fossil fuel exploration and extraction (rather than into renewable energies and energy efficiency) will either (i) be stranded (as retrofitting the plant with CCS turns out to be a less viable option than anticipated), or (ii) push cumulative emissions beyond the point where avoiding dangerous climate change could become impossible or (iii) lock in the need for future large scale deployment of technologies to extract CO2 from the air.
PIK-Potsdam: 26 questions about GHG emission targets