-- there are no borders in the natural world --
Dear Friend,
I write to you today with urgent news. The most-endangered bird species in Canada — the northern Spotted Owl - needs your immediate action to save it from extinction in Canada.
Act now by asking federal Environment Minister David Anderson to bring an emergency order to his cabinet colleagues to stop further destruction of spotted owl habitat and help lead to its recovery.
Spotted owl numbers in Canada have dropped to 25 breeding pairs, yet the government of British Columbia continues to allow logging in the final remnants of their habitat. The forests of southeastern B.C. are the only places in Canada where this endangered bird is found.
If the federal government does not take emergency measures as permitted under the Species at Risk Act, biologists estimate the spotted owl will become extinct in Canada within a decade.
THANK YOU for your action
-- sample letter added to comments --
Dear Minister,
I believe most Canadians know how difficult your job must be since so much emphasis in public policy and a majority of taxpayers' money goes to the task of ensuring our economies are kept burning.
I, for one, applaud your courage in the face of such a daunting and delicate task. While we have dominion of the planet and our needs come first it is with sadness that the erosion of species must be so marked in our time.
Best of luck with this 'issue'. I hope you are able to tackle the difficult challenge ahead in the tomorrow we have remaining.
-- snip
Well, I guess if I am writing a blog I should at least get some mileage out of it. Please spend the 2 minutes it takes to send this faxed message. Submissions are accepted from anywhere in the world.
ViAgArA/ FREE 100% / Advertise NOW/ 100% FREE / ViAgArA / FREE
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
PURPA is the way a politician says Tequila
I have to have a sense of humor about trying to play any kind of politics because like many before me I am not the cleanest person around. I've left a trail of secrets behind me so that if anyone who wants to can deny any argument I put forward just by issuing a judgment about the one night I got drunk at a party and ralphed in my buddy's bathroom. Word of warning. Avoid Tequila at all costs. Do not drink an entire bottle.
You begin to realize very quickly that even if you believe in redemption you are still the person you were before any sort of transformation took place. The reek of it remains long after the cleanup as it were.
Those partying days are behind me now you'll be happy to know. Going forward, the bright energy future is on the horizon. Together we will someday raise a clear glass of 'imported' spring water or tailpipe emissions to our mutual triumph... (I'll have wine with my cheese, thanks). Or will we?
Technically, the climate seems right to squeeze more efficiency out of photovoltaic panels than ever before. Designs hitting the market can now be built with 25 per cent efficiency with roughly 35 per cent uptime. And in wind turbines bearingless designs can peak out at 40 per cent efficiency with similar uptime. But the political climate, particularly in the US, took a turn in 2001 when the Bush administration killed one of former President Jimmy Carter's last remaining Energy policy amendments dating back to 1978.
PURPA Refrom Group Applauds 2001 Decision
According to one source Carter's energy policies were estimated to have cost an extra $8 Billion per year in the United States. What would be interesting to find out is if anyone knows whether energy costs were $8 Billion less following the 2001 repeal of the PURPA amendment?
Scientists Express Concern Over PURPA Void
"Technically, PURPA only calls for renewable energy if it is cost competitive with conventional polluting resources. Many of the benefits of renewables are not included in the price, such as clean air, but PURPA makes no provision for including these. By strictly interpreting the law, FERC has expressly forbidden non-price factors in PURPA decisions."
Politically, these scientists, who guys eat, breath and sleep study are like the unredeemed who everybody remembers had too much to drink at the party and fell down in a pool of their own vomit.
Nobody really knows what scientists are saying, nor do the people who do listen have much time to figure out the message. All a scientist is really good for is to make chemicals and derive killer products to pollute the environment for his or her 15 per cent per annum wage increase. My vision of the scientist is of the person who is always amiable but somewhat bumbling. She can never find her purse and doesn't know anything about money. But she knows where to find a great party and she can screw the little plastic top off the Tequila bottle no matter how tight it is.
I hope you don't share this stereotype.
-- in no way do I endorse my own opinion --
You begin to realize very quickly that even if you believe in redemption you are still the person you were before any sort of transformation took place. The reek of it remains long after the cleanup as it were.
Those partying days are behind me now you'll be happy to know. Going forward, the bright energy future is on the horizon. Together we will someday raise a clear glass of 'imported' spring water or tailpipe emissions to our mutual triumph... (I'll have wine with my cheese, thanks). Or will we?
Technically, the climate seems right to squeeze more efficiency out of photovoltaic panels than ever before. Designs hitting the market can now be built with 25 per cent efficiency with roughly 35 per cent uptime. And in wind turbines bearingless designs can peak out at 40 per cent efficiency with similar uptime. But the political climate, particularly in the US, took a turn in 2001 when the Bush administration killed one of former President Jimmy Carter's last remaining Energy policy amendments dating back to 1978.
PURPA Refrom Group Applauds 2001 Decision
According to one source Carter's energy policies were estimated to have cost an extra $8 Billion per year in the United States. What would be interesting to find out is if anyone knows whether energy costs were $8 Billion less following the 2001 repeal of the PURPA amendment?
Scientists Express Concern Over PURPA Void
"Technically, PURPA only calls for renewable energy if it is cost competitive with conventional polluting resources. Many of the benefits of renewables are not included in the price, such as clean air, but PURPA makes no provision for including these. By strictly interpreting the law, FERC has expressly forbidden non-price factors in PURPA decisions."
Politically, these scientists, who guys eat, breath and sleep study are like the unredeemed who everybody remembers had too much to drink at the party and fell down in a pool of their own vomit.
Nobody really knows what scientists are saying, nor do the people who do listen have much time to figure out the message. All a scientist is really good for is to make chemicals and derive killer products to pollute the environment for his or her 15 per cent per annum wage increase. My vision of the scientist is of the person who is always amiable but somewhat bumbling. She can never find her purse and doesn't know anything about money. But she knows where to find a great party and she can screw the little plastic top off the Tequila bottle no matter how tight it is.
I hope you don't share this stereotype.
-- in no way do I endorse my own opinion --
Monday, March 01, 2004
drape a half-naked model and voila... traditional advertising scheme
Just so you know, car companies are making a genuine effort. The 'egg' still has to be broken though. Why not talk to your bank manager today and find out what incentives are being offered as your financial institution's investment in 'clean' technology. The more requests this manager receives the better your chances of having the question passed on up the line so that the president's ear is bent. If your bank can invest money on whatever they want why not invest directly in the people who make it all possible -- you? You bought and paid for the car. Seeding the softpath could be as easy as putting protected funds on the key players in the hydrogen economy and then giving people like you less expensive money dependent on their choices. Imagine a 2 per cent loan for a hydrogen only vehicle or a 5 per cent loan for something that uses a reformer to convert methanol, or a 10 per cent loan to a car that uses a reformer to convert gasoline? What does a bank have to lose if the hydrogen economy is supposed to happen anyway? The mechanisms must be in place to facilitate this change more rapidly. I just wonder if there is some sort of ethical dilemma in that?
Oh yes, and now any and all are encouraged to drape their favorite model over some of these luscious designs.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
(PDF) Fuel Cell Car Chart
sobriety is about how much you can afford to drink
Five Hundred Million Cars, One Planet
Just think about the future value of the gasoline powered car. How old are the heaps littering the road anyway? As of 2002 there were an estimated 531 million cars on roads the world over, 25 per cent of which were in the US alone. Depreciation already takes a huge chunk of a car's value as soon as it is driven off the lot. Would people rather wait until later to have their gasoline cars made worthless? When is really a good time? The longer individuals wait the longer it will take. No amount of transitional planning can save the value of your vehicle. Conversion to hybrid fuels in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) are costly unless they are built into the purchase price of a vehicle. Depreciated assets are difficult to spend money on when there is no cost recovery involved in the expense.
How many of those cars are going to be kept to the standard of a classic so they can go on display 25 years from now?
I know which model I want.
Oh yes, and now any and all are encouraged to drape their favorite model over some of these luscious designs.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
(PDF) Fuel Cell Car Chart
sobriety is about how much you can afford to drink
Five Hundred Million Cars, One Planet
Just think about the future value of the gasoline powered car. How old are the heaps littering the road anyway? As of 2002 there were an estimated 531 million cars on roads the world over, 25 per cent of which were in the US alone. Depreciation already takes a huge chunk of a car's value as soon as it is driven off the lot. Would people rather wait until later to have their gasoline cars made worthless? When is really a good time? The longer individuals wait the longer it will take. No amount of transitional planning can save the value of your vehicle. Conversion to hybrid fuels in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) are costly unless they are built into the purchase price of a vehicle. Depreciated assets are difficult to spend money on when there is no cost recovery involved in the expense.
How many of those cars are going to be kept to the standard of a classic so they can go on display 25 years from now?
I know which model I want.
radical public utility
Over this weekend I have read a lot and given over much of my time to thinking about some of the unspoken barriers to adopting the hydrogen economy.
One question really dominated my thoughts, but I couldn't define whether it was a barrier or a socialist plot creeping under my skin.
What if car companies everywhere were deemed public utilities?
Phrased as a question the words seem almost ludicrous. Why would a car company become a public utility? The roads and the garbage are already taken care of by most governments. Besides, car companies operate without the kinds of political or cultural borders that governments do. Being a public utility would mean radical change -- everywhere a car is assembled or a part is sourced to complete a design.
In fact, if car companies became public utilites it would probably mean that design would be done by consensus in a manner that those companies couldn't resist. It might even mean that car design would be accomplished by consensus.
As it is, bringing car companies together over standards and managing to convince that any kind of change is necessary is a costly endeavor put forward by government on behalf of the people who bought the cars in the first place.
Just who is governing who around here anyway? So much for competition in the marketplace...
One question really dominated my thoughts, but I couldn't define whether it was a barrier or a socialist plot creeping under my skin.
What if car companies everywhere were deemed public utilities?
Phrased as a question the words seem almost ludicrous. Why would a car company become a public utility? The roads and the garbage are already taken care of by most governments. Besides, car companies operate without the kinds of political or cultural borders that governments do. Being a public utility would mean radical change -- everywhere a car is assembled or a part is sourced to complete a design.
In fact, if car companies became public utilites it would probably mean that design would be done by consensus in a manner that those companies couldn't resist. It might even mean that car design would be accomplished by consensus.
As it is, bringing car companies together over standards and managing to convince that any kind of change is necessary is a costly endeavor put forward by government on behalf of the people who bought the cars in the first place.
Just who is governing who around here anyway? So much for competition in the marketplace...
Sunday, February 29, 2004
century's most important decision
Public responses to decisions taken on these matters are too late after the decision is taken. The following may be THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION of the next century in North America. Remember that GM controls 67 per cent of the automotive market. Coupled with REGENERATIVE fuel cells and distributed electrical production, our electrical infrastructure could ultimately replace plans for piped hydrogen and propel us into a Hydrogen economy very rapidly. The link attached to this post is broken. I have put in a request to Valri Lightner for more information about this problem and the upcoming meeting. I will post as soon her reply is made.
1. DOE Announces Date for Decision Regarding On-Board Fuel Processing
The U.S. Department of Energy has announced June 30, 2004, as the planned date for its go/no-go decision regarding on-board fuel processing for fuel cell vehicles. A panel has been assembled by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to review the current state of fuel processing activities against technical criteria. Based on the findings of the panel, NREL will submit a written recommendation to DOE on or before June 18, 2004. Written position papers for consideration by DOE regarding this decision must be received by May 15, 2004. NREL must receive requests to speak before the review panel no later than May 15, 2004. For further information, contact Valri Lightner, DOE, Ph. 202-586-0937, or valri.lightner@ee.doe.gov.
Get Details
1. DOE Announces Date for Decision Regarding On-Board Fuel Processing
The U.S. Department of Energy has announced June 30, 2004, as the planned date for its go/no-go decision regarding on-board fuel processing for fuel cell vehicles. A panel has been assembled by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to review the current state of fuel processing activities against technical criteria. Based on the findings of the panel, NREL will submit a written recommendation to DOE on or before June 18, 2004. Written position papers for consideration by DOE regarding this decision must be received by May 15, 2004. NREL must receive requests to speak before the review panel no later than May 15, 2004. For further information, contact Valri Lightner, DOE, Ph. 202-586-0937, or valri.lightner@ee.doe.gov.
Get Details
never a hydrogen infrastructure
The following email was sent to the [H2OPower] list on Topica, a list to which I recently subscribed.
I have also posted the message to the [softpath] list also hosted on Topica. This article is highly recommended reading as it puts forward the means to an immediate transition to the Hydrogen economy.
Please precis the article and send your viewpoint along to local representatives, newspapers, friends, colleagues, etc. to get the word out. Forward your official contacts (esp. media and political) to the [softpath] list or to me and I will collate them for use. -- Tim
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Here is a link to a paper on the H2 economy which may
stimulate some debate;
stimulate some debate;
It makes some good points but is somewhat myopic in that it
only considers the issue from one "standard" viewpoint. If any part of the
paradigm could be changed the whole thing would collapse. The main parameters
that I think CAN be changed are the source of hydrogen and the
method/location of production.
only considers the issue from one "standard" viewpoint. If any part of the
paradigm could be changed the whole thing would collapse. The main parameters
that I think CAN be changed are the source of hydrogen and the
method/location of production.
If hydrogen is produced from water then the location of the
production can be almost anywhere, such as at the point of use (or very close to
it). This eliminates the need for a whole new storage and distribution
infrastructure. So the real challenge then is going to be solely in finding more
efficient means to produce hydrogen at the point/time of use.
production can be almost anywhere, such as at the point of use (or very close to
it). This eliminates the need for a whole new storage and distribution
infrastructure. So the real challenge then is going to be solely in finding more
efficient means to produce hydrogen at the point/time of use.
MJ
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: tim.pozza@sympatico.ca
EASY SUBSCRIBE:
Send an email to: H2OPower-subscribe@topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)