print      source      versions

tags: moronism   alternativeenergy   

Comments ... #

its so incredibly disappointing that jeep isnt working harder to make their cars more efficient. ive always had my eye on a jeep, and even had the chance to rent one a couple of weeks ago. if they doubled their MPG id get one in a heart beat. how on earth can an suv as small as the liberty get such terrible MPG? how on earth can JEEP be so backwards thinking? it's a crying shame. I want to be proud of our local products...

posted by upso on Sep 25, 2007 at 10:29:32 am     #

also.. you know.. i agree it stinks he's supporting the car with bad MPG.. but shouldnt we encourage his stance on green energy for the region?

posted by upso on Sep 25, 2007 at 01:57:37 pm     #

From the Blade story:

Ohio is now one of the least- diversified states for energy production, with 95 percent of the state's electricity derived from coal-fired power plants. Ohio, with its vast population and industrial base, is the nation's fifth-largest energy user.

So why not put nuclear power energy at the top of the list, way, way ahead of every other option, like France has done?

posted by jr on Sep 25, 2007 at 02:26:59 pm     #

All that and the price of Milk!

This is in addition to Carty and other NW Ohio politicians' clamor to build biofuel plants in the area.
Biofuel - putting FOOD into the gas tank. An inefficient alternative that costs more to produce, provides less power and vehicle economy, and effects the cost of every food stuff - especially dairy - in a negative way.

Sure it may seem like I am saving a few cents at the biofuel pump, and feel all warm and fuzzy and greeen for doing my part to save the planet. But what good is that if I pay dollars more for milk, cheese, beef, yogurt, and CORN.

Additionally farmers are already subsidized by YOUR MONEY, biofuel has to be subsidized with YOUR MONEY to be profitable (Erie Street Market economics 101), and thus the cost savings and environmental improvement is zero in the end. Actually less than zero.

The A-Hole.

One parting question - IF food does become a legitimate energy source and the evil BIG ENERGY COMPANIES have a valid economic interest in it, who will loose the battle over FOOD, the energy companies OR the poor, hungry and downtrodden of the nation and planet?

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 25, 2007 at 04:59:37 pm     #

not just dairy and beef, but just about everything these days has corn syrup in it...cereal, condiments, peanut butter, chips, dressings, pop... In fact, of the average 10,000 items found in a grocery store, about 2,500 will have a corn product in it.

Even beer...

and then you have things like cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, spark plugs, tires and rubber products - even whiskey.

The fact that our esteemed elite in D.C. failed to realize that providing tax subsidies to ethanol would divert corn from the 'regular' market, thus resulting in higher costs for products made with corn - just confounds me...

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 25, 2007 at 05:36:47 pm     #

On top of that, farming doesn't exactly have positive effects on the environment. It destroys habitats, soaks the land with chemical fertilizers (made of oil) causing toxic runoff which gets into our waterways, and diverts water resources for irrigation. I'd like to see the figures after tallying the energy costs of cultivating, processing and distributing this fuel, if our energy investment pays any dividends. Essentially, it turns our fields into solar energy collectors. Might we be better off with a field of solar panels?

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 25, 2007 at 06:18:34 pm     #

The debate on corn aside, wind and solar are also included in this "diversified" green-energy proposal. I think this is a move in the right direction... and if anything spurs more discussion on the issue of reducing our impact on the environment and our reliance on fossil fuels.

I work from home, only use the car for errands every few days and outside of heating during the winter we are not hurting in the wallet as much as the average American. Regardless, this is an issue I feel strongly about and believe it should weigh heavily on the minds of everyone.

posted by jhostetler on Sep 25, 2007 at 07:17:51 pm     #

Other Toledo Talk postings:

• Corn Ethanol Not A Viable Energy Option
• Ethanol production costs are rising
• Ethanol production increasing food prices

And somewhat related:

• Vegetarianism: The most effective tool against global warming

Jul 3, 2006 Toledo Blade guest column titled Bio-fuels are not the answer.

The focus on bio-fuels as a silver bullet to solve our energy and climate change crises is at best misguided. At worst, it is a scheme that could have potentially disastrous environmental consequences. It will have little effect on our fossil fuel dependence. Pushing bio-fuels at the expense of energy conservation today will only make our problems more severe, and their solutions more painful, tomorrow.

Rather than chase phantom substitutes for fossil fuels, we should focus on what can immediately both slow our contribution to global climate change and reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels: cutting energy use.

Improving fuel efficiency in cars by just one mile per gallon - a gain possible with proper tire inflation - would cut fuel consumption equal to the total amount of ethanol federally mandated for production in 2012.

posted by jr on Sep 25, 2007 at 07:25:45 pm     #

cutting energy use.

for instance

do you really need that plastic container in your kitchen, the one that soaks up the color of your food and never really seems clean? or could your kitchen benefit by a glass alternative? which looks looks better and ultimately lasts forever?

that is one of many opportunities.

posted by jhostetler on Sep 25, 2007 at 10:22:54 pm     #

This pic is not horizontal. Look closely, either all the trees and plants are growing tilted to the left or (insert subtle cultural reference to the poster's lack of perceptiveness here):

posted by charlatan on Sep 25, 2007 at 10:40:53 pm     #

thought I'd share the website for the Ohio Wind Working Group in case anyone wanted to see what Ohio is doing in terms of wind energy...

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 26, 2007 at 12:31:20 pm     #

Here's a windy idea for Carty's alternative energy research center that's from an April 3, 2007 The Economist story titled Flying wind farms. Some excerpts:

If people object to wind farms cluttering up the countryside, one answer might be to put them in the air. If it ever seems windy where you live, be thankful you do not live 10km [6.2 mi] up in the air. At that height, the jet-stream winds blow stronger and more constantly than ground level winds, carrying up to a hundred times more energy.

So, just as oil companies are drilling deeper and in more remote locations in search of new reserves, pioneer wind-power engineers are looking higher in the sky for new sources of energy. Conventional turbines will not take them there—the highest to date is just over 200 metres tall. So they are trying to invent a whole new technology for harvesting wind: electricity generators that fly.

One of the most ambitious ideas has been developed by Sky WindPower, a company based in San Diego. Mr Shepard’s flying generator looks like a cross between a kite and a helicopter. It has four rotors at the points of an H-shaped frame that is tethered to the ground by a long cable. The rotors act like the surface of a kite, providing the lift needed to keep the platform in the air. As they do so, they also turn dynamos that generate electricity. This power is transmitted to the ground through aluminium cables. Should there be a lull in the wind, the dynamos can be used in reverse as electric motors, to keep the generator airborne.

Exploiting the jet stream represents the zenith (both literally and figuratively) of aerial wind-engineers’ ambitions. Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution who has worked with Sky WindPower, estimates that harvesting just 1% of its energy would produce enough power for the whole of civilisation. But even at lower altitudes, the winds are stronger than they are at the surface, and that has attracted the attention of other inventors.

In Canada a company called Magenn Power has developed a proposal for a wind generator filled with helium. It turns around a horizontal axis, rather like a water mill, and could fly at an altitude of up to 1km. The firm sees its system as an alternative to diesel generators in remote locations where ground-level wind is insufficient for a normal windmill.

Any promise of such cheap energy has to be treated with scepticism, and all these projects are still a long way from the full-scale test rigs needed to prove they will succeed. No-one denies that it will be hard to build a flying generator that can make money. However, the political impetus behind renewable energy is growing and space is limited at ground level.

posted by jr on Sep 26, 2007 at 02:26:57 pm     #

Sep 26, 2007 blog posting :

Got a green company and looking for funding? According to World-Wire, “Environmental Capital Partners, LLC (”ECP”) announced that it has formed a relationship with New York Private Bank & Trust to invest $100 million exclusively in green companies. Sectors of particular interest for the firm include: green consumer products, eco-friendly building materials, alternative energy, and industrial environmental services.

Investing in UT solar energy company

posted by jr on Sep 26, 2007 at 10:37:20 pm     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk

current date: 13-Oct-2008 8:09 A.M.

old version of Toledo Talk