Help Wanted: TreeHugger is Looking for a Full-time Alternative Energy Writer

Do you have a formal job description? Travel expectations, Pay range, benefits, etc?

Yes, I would also like to hear about the job description, salary, benefits, etc.

As a commen person - I've been writing on ways to improve this world. It would be nice to recieve some green for it...

However, geed was not the reason - green does make the man made world turn - I would only write on subjects that I feel needs the ears of the people ...

Save the World Kids First

- you would be surprised to learn how much resources are wasted and most of all - how simple a fix is!

However, the fix is easy - braking down the walls of business as my grandfather, grand fathers, and his father has done business is very hard to do...

All the above statements have a direct impact on how people view and treat the earth, each other and conduct business!

The problem with our world today - people judge you on what you own, not what you know! Just because someone has a MBA will not made that person a good businessman - it only helps a good businessman be a better manager of business...

I know that I've been hard on the businessmen - for they are the key that shall bring about the most changes in the future. It will never be the old school, take the money and run mind sets...

And this is the reason I'm been hard on the businessman, to make the good ones standout - so the people can see them above the rest and spent their money with the business that is putting their money behind the words with action.

I'll get to the plans for the future and the past history - but at this time it's more important that you understand timing is at the up most ...

It takes time to build a network of like minds and if we our to change the politics that make policy - Then now is the best time to act as a United Front!!!

The first step: is that you take the time to learn who you do business with and there views on the issues you believe in!

#2: support business that supports what you believe, or find out why - they may have a good point...

#3: let them know what you care about and ask them to join you in our movement to make sure the next election is focused on real non bias green energy and a free trade policy that is only in the American National Interest.

We can't let Ethanol-promoting farmers in Iowa determine our energy policy anymore by virtue of the early Iowa primary. *For too long, we've had in this country is energy politics, not energy policy, and that is why we have this incoherent mess of energy systems, standards and fuels.

*NOTE: The use of food stock should not be used when other plants and can do more, corn use should only be as a temp. Step until other sources can be put to crop.

"A new conversation has started in the country - a new energy economy is what the people want," said Carl Pope, director of the Sierra Club. To get there, though, we need to force politicians to start thinking about going "green" as part of our national security strategy. We need our candidates to be [honest and] talking about such things in the campaign so they have a mandate to act if elected.

A group of environmental entrepreneurs, including Andrew Shapiro of Green Order and Jesse Fink of Marshall Street Management, just created a Web site, GreenPrimary.org. to host online forums where, after the Green Debate, voters can study the different candidates' policy positions and even vote for the one they think is most serious.”

The 2008 presidential campaign will present the first opportunity for a national candidate to make sustainability a breakthrough electoral issue," Shapiro argues.

Polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, conducted for the Center for American Progress underscores that large majorities of Independents (59%) and Democrats (76%) support action now to stop global warming and make the U.S. energy - independent, along with a significant bloc of Republicans (41%). "Only 27% of people feel that our energy policy is headed in the right direction, while 65% say our energy policy is seriously off on the wrong track."

They're right. The biggest energy deficit we have right now in America is the energy to lead on this issue -- to overcome all the entrenched interests that have tied us in knots and left our country with what the energy expert Gal Luft calls " the sum of all lobbies" instead of the sum of the best energy practices. (I’ve said this for years)

The best way to overcame that is to elevate the issue during the campaign to a level that forces everyone to put a *serious energy / environmental platform on the table and builds a real mandate for the next president.

*NOTE: lets not for get putting Americas Intent first in Global Trade! It's very simple folks - when international business put there workers above to the share holder's short term profit - the company, country and in the long run share holders wins.

These 3 issues - Energy / Environmental and global trade our most important issues facing the nation, bar none!!! They surpass all others - for these 3 affects the war, jobs, safety, health and other issues as part of their benefits.

Renewables :
Robber Barons -The Axlis of Evil, and an Solution...
by: Marshall

Con Job and Solution:

We need to build a lot more alternative energy sources as fast as possible -

Policies

Nuclear power, coal, oil research should be reduced and these funds used for building renewals - and natural gas could stay @ $15 billion for R@D. The drilling of natural gas is similar to oil and can cross over to geothermal, besides oil and gas is found together in a lot of places.

We need to change our energy consumption source - we must remove the source with the most carbon out first (*coal), then oil and not add any more nuclear waste. In fact, we need to find a way to reduce our nuclear waste! These are the steps needed to the road of sustainability!

* note: Prolonging the life of coal plants that have been build should be done with improvements to make them cleaner, with no or little investment into new coal power plants ... This helps reduce our need of Middle East oil, as long as the savings are being invested into renewals. Nearly half of the U.S. electricity needs are met by coal fired power plants, around 20% is supplied by nuclear power, natural gas accounts for about 18%, while oil and alternative energies constitute the remainder.

Part One

The Oil Dependence - how we get there

Small amounts of petroleum have been used throughout history. The Egyptians coated mummies and sealed their mighty Pyramids with pitch. The Babylonians, Assyrians and Persians used it to pave their streets, hold their walls and buildings together. Boats along the Euphrates were constructed with woven reeds and sealed with pitch. The Chinese also came across it while digging holes for brine (salt water) and used the petroleum for heating. The Bible even claims that Noah used it to make his Ark seaworthy.

American Indians used petroleum for paint, fuel, and medicine. Desert Nomads used it to treat camels for mange, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, used petroleum to treat his gout. Ancient Persians and Sumatrans also believed petroleum had medicinal value.

This seemed a popular idea, and up to the 19th century jars of petroleum were sold as a miracle tonic to cure whatever ailed you. People who drank this "snake oil" discovered that petroleum doesn't taste very good! We use petroleum today as the building block for a kinds of medicinal treatments.

Despite its usefulness, for thousands of years petroleum was very scarce. People collected it when it bubbled to the surface or seeped into wells. For those digging wells for drinking water it was nuisance. However, some thought the oil might have large scale economic value - Mr. George Bissell, a lawyer thought that petroleum might be converted into kerosene (more likely his first business partner) for use in lamps. An analysis by Benjamin Silliman, Jr., a Yale chemistry and geology professor, confirmed his hunch.

In 1854 Bissell and a friend formed the unsuccessful Pennsylvania Rock oil company. Not one to be easily dismayed, in 1858 Bissell and a group of business men formed the Seneca oil Company. they hired an ex-railroad conductor named Edwin Drake to drill for oil along a secluded creek in Titusville, Pennsylvania.

In 1859 this motley crew found oil at a depth of 69 1/2 feet. Drake's well produced only thirty five barrels a day; however, he could sell it for $20 a barrel. News of the well quickly spread and brought droves of fortune seekers. Black Gold Rush was on!

Transporting the oil was also a problem. In 1865 Samuel Van Syckel, an oil buyer, began construction on a two inch wide pipeline designed to span the distance to the railroad deport five miles away. Mr. Drake was committed to the oil business. He scoured the country looking for customers - however, the bad smell and mostly a highly volatile component called naphtha caused few sales. It became obvious that the oil needed to be refined to be marketed.

By 1860 there were 15 refineries - the first component to boil off was naphtha, next came the kerosene "lamp oil", and the last component was oils and tar which were simply left in the bottom of the drum. These early refineries produced about 75% kerosene, which could be sold for high profits.

Kerosene was so valuable because of a whale shortage that began in 1845 due to heavy hunting. Sperm whale oil had been the main product of the whaling industry and was used in lamps. Candles were made with another whale product called "spermaceti". This shortage of whales "a natural source", meant that kerosene was in great demand.

In 1869 Robert Chesebrough discovered how to make petroleum jelly and called his new product Vaseline. The heavy components began being used as lubricants, or as waxes in candles and chewing gum. Tar was used as roofing material.

But the more volatile components were still without much value. Limited success came in using gasoline as a local anesthetic and liquid protroleum gas (LPG) in compression cycle to make ice. The success in refined petroleum products greatly spread the technique. By 1965 there was 194 refineries in operation.

In 1862 John D. Rockefeller financed his first refinery as a side line investment. He soon discovered that he liked the petroleum industry, Mr. Rockefeller saw early on that refining and transportation, as opposed to production, were the keys to taking control of the industry. And control the industry he did!

In 1870 he established Standard Oil, which then controlled 10% of the refining capacity in the country. Transportation often encompassed 20% of the total production cost, Rockefeller made under the table deals with the railroads to give him secret shipping rebates. This cheap transportation allowed Standard to under cut its competitors, and Rockefeller expanded aggressively, buying out competitors left and right.

Soon Standard built a network of "iron arteries" which delivered oil across the Eastern United States. This pipeline system relieved Standard's dependence upon the rail roads and reduced its transportation cost even more (back room deals can bite). By 1880 Standard controlled 90% of the country's refining capacity.

Oil and automobiles fell into each other's arms. When *Gottlieb Daimler introduced the first gasoline powered horseless carriage in 1885, the oil industry - including Standard Oil was reeling from an invention introduced by Thomas Edison just three years before. The eclectic powered light in New York City had made the kerosene market, the oil industry's raison price, essentially redundant. *note: the first Automobiles engines ran on biofuels.

Salvation for the oil industry would come from another new invention, ironically, it would be from one of Edison's own employees - a engineer at Edison's Illuminating Company in Detroit who was obsessed with the horseless carriage. In 1896 he had succeeded in constructing a ethanol powered quadricyle, that prompted him to think of building a bigger and better automobile, his name was Mr. Henry Ford.

In 1908 Henry Ford and his coterie of engineers unveiled his first gasoline powered motorcar, the Model T, five years after forming the Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford favored the burning of ethanol in his engines, but gasoline was a easier fuel to control. Ironically, he called ethanol "the fuel of the future"!

By 1920, some two million new cars were being sold each year and America's passion for driving mirrored its post World War exuberances - at the time, local, state, and the federal government were all making sure the automobile would have the road infrastructure it needed to succeed. THIS IS WHAT IS NEEDED TODAY TO BRING ABOUT A TOTAL RENEWABLE ENERGY and the ECONOMIES OF THIS NEW INDUSTRY.

So advocates of America's City Beautiful movement envisioned wide new paved roads as the way to bring structure and elegance to the overcrowded cities.

But as we now know, this was only the beginning of the demolishing of the public transportation system, family farms, wild life and the worlds climate.

Wider roads simply begat more automobiles and began the new form of city congestion. A blind eye was turned to cars, the blamed was the trolley with its fixed route and schedule that took the fall of gridlock.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Aid Highway Act, providing it with $75 million over five years for a highway department in every state. There were over three and a half million cars on the roads by then.

This act was supported by farm groups as a better way to get there crops into the cities... However, the real bright on the world - tellingly was a new group of carpetbaggers (suburban realtors) that begun the push to flee the cities.

Through out the 20's new highways investments across the country reached a billion dollars a year and provided the foundation for the automobile and domestic oil industry.

The four lane Bronx River Parkway opened in 1925 and asphalt fever soon captured the imagination of engineers and city planners, at this vanguard was Robert Moses. The new roads made living outside the city attractive.

The notion of city suburb had been pioneered by the streetcar, which had been quietly expanding the boundaries of metropolitan living since the turn of the century, now the motorcar blew the idea of city limits a part. The 20's saw a 59% growth in suburban populations as new auto inspired communities flourished.

American way of life would come to a halt with the 1929 stock market collapse and the onset of the Great Depression (*see note ). But that didn't mean the cars stopped running. America was the only nation that ever went into the poorhouse in a automobile.

Somehow the mass unemployed always found a little extra to keep their cars on the road. "Then as now, as long as we Americans depend on fossil fuels - we'll have mass unemployed workers in the poorhouse. But this time, because of fuel shortage driving up food cost, their cars shall be found in ever higher numbers, on the side of the road."

Just as the United States was at its lowest ebb, the automobile received its biggest push. In 1932.Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised his New Deal, a centerpiece of which was the construction of new roads.

As part of the emergency Public Works Administration Initiatives, one million people were hired for highway projects. FDR's Civic Works Administration allowed for 500,000 new miles of road building and some 80% of all New Deal agency expenditures were dedicated to roads and new construction....

In 1950s, the United States was the world's leading producer of oil bar none. Much of the nation's industrial and military might derived from its giant oil industry.

The country seemed to be floating on a rich, gooey ocean of black gold. Nobody was willing to believe (sounds formular) that the party would ever end. Well, almost nobody.

In 1956 the belief "there's more down there" is emblematic of the long held belief that oil will never run out. This optimism has been shared by Americans since the automobile became the staple of life in the United States.

With the advent of the suburbs - as Americans moved farther away from urban centers, they began to drive longer distances to work, enforcing the nation's reliance on the automobile - this deepened America's dependence on oil.

Unfortunately, as oil dependence increased, oil reserves in the United States decreased, forcing the nation to buy an increasing percentage of its oil from other nations. This reliance comes at a cost to the environment and our National Security.

By importing over half of its oil from other nations, the United States is very vulnerable to the price shocks and supply disruptions caused by market maninepations, political unrest or both - Especially in other areas of the world.

An geophysicist in 1956 - Marion King Hubert predicted that oil discovery in the lower forty eight states would peak in the 70's, he also stated that the worlds oil would peak shortly after the year 2000.

At first, not many people listened to Hubert's predictions, (the same for the Environment) but when oil discovery in the lower forty eight states did indeed peak in the 70's, scientists from all over the world began to examine Hubert's predictions more closely.

Despite the debate over Hubert's predictions, SMART GOVERNMENTS would be assuming the worst by making investments in alternative transportation fuels to use in lieu of oil.

Only one nation has done this on a national level - it's not the U.S.! In fact we have been running full speed in to the stone age... The other nations policy may not be - (it's not) the best -but we most give them credit for removing oil from being their nations one fuel used.

The United States, is the world's largest consumer of oil, had begun an investment in the 70's, only to put it on the sideline in the 80's. Today our policy is more of the same - it's putting a clean spin on bad fuels as it adds a little true green power sources - to appease and confuse the public.

The world has past the US - our leaders from @ 80 to date had their hands in the pockets of Big Oil and others; the proof if this, is in the fact that every renewable program, started after the '73 oil crisis, has never had its R/D program funded at the level of oil, coal or nuclear.

This dichotomy is easy to see - Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the Whitehouse - Reagan ripped them out! This global warming crisis has be studied to death from the '70 to date and the Whitehouse is still playing games to in rich the oil business - How, just follow the money...

We still build gas hogs, those tax credit for SUV's that help the car and oil business - why do we not have a new fuel mileage standard? Why is low yield fuel crops, of food stock being used to make bio-fuel, when most of the rest of the world is not?

Why has Bush removed the teeth from the EPA? Why did he refuse to sign carbon reduction plans? Who was it going to hurt? If you can not connect the dots - then you need to stick you head up Bush's ass, for your blind - so maybe you can smell his ass instead!

I'm not afraid of our government - for if they kill me, it shall prove my points, no they will try to discredit me, as being a nut - if I'm a nut then you have no worries. The Jesuits should scare the living hell out of you - If you believe just 1/10th of this please help by acting... Time Is running out! Let's get back to the subject of oil and deal with the policy of America, more on this latter .

Today we who live in the developed world which expects the night to be illuminated, air conditioning in summer and heat in winter. Many work everyday and some up to 100 or more miles from work in multi -ton vehicles that transport them on demand, on roads paved with asphalt (a oil by-product ).

Thousands of airline flights per day can take us to virtually anyplace on earth within hours. When we get there, we can still chat with love ones at home, or conduct business as if we had never left the office.

Amenities that was once reserved for the rich are now available to most of the people in the world now, refrigeration rather than spices preserves food, and machines do most of the work. Ships, planes, trains, and trucks transport goods of every description all around the earth.

With six billion plus people - Earths population go's unchecked - we don't see the stars so clearly anymore - besides who needs to see a space rock hit us anyways, but most of us would not choose to return back to the 18th century.

In 2004, a report that the vast Saudi oil fields are in decline was a far bigger story then most in the controlled media, or the Bush Administration seem to realize.

We may begrudge the Saudis their 30 year stranglehold on the world economy - but even the possibility that the lords of oil have less of the stuff then advertised raises troubling questions.

Have they been cutting productions to cover the storage, prolonging the search for alternative energy technologies and leaving other nations in a pickle? How long will the world's long term oil supplies last?

Western governments have been relentlessly upbeat about the long term outlook of oil. When ever pessimists claimed supplies were running low - oil company's always seemed to discover a new huge oil fields - only the race to keep up with demand has never happen, as with natural gas, oil optimist, believe that global oil reserves won't run out for at least a few more decades.

This seems like enough time to devise other technologies to smoothly and seamlessly replace oil, and if we didn't have the ticking time bomb of global warming and the diminishing ecosystems, it might work!

Today's demand stands @ 29 billion barrels of oil a year, and so does production - by 2020, demand is projected to reach 45 billion a year!

Will oil companies be able to keep production accordingly? At some point, production simply won't be able to match demand - oil is an exhaustible resource!

Life after the peak will not be very nice - and I'm thinking we have reached that time...

The term "peak" tends to suggest a nice neat curve with production rising slowly to a halfway point, then tapering off gradually to zero - but in the real world, the landing will not be so soft.

As we hit the peak, soaring prices will encourage governments to encourage oil companies to scour the planet for oil.

For a short time they will succeed, finding enough crude to keep production flat. But in reality, post peck production will deplete remaining reserves all the more quickly, thus ensuring that the eventual decline is far steeper and far more sudden - the edge of a plateau well look a lot like a tall cliff.

If our oil dependence hasn't lessened drastically by then, the global economy is likely to slip into a recession so severe that the Great Depression will look like a dress rehearsal of a funnel of the bride! We are now at this point my friends and time is not on our side.

Oil will cease to be viable as a fuel - hardly an encouraging scenario in a world where oil currently provides 40% of all energy and nearly 90% of all transportation fuel.

Political reaction would be desperate. Industrial economies, hungry for energy, would begin making it from any source available - most likely coal, regardless of the ecological consequences!

Folks, if you can comprehend what you've just read - we our now at that point and the prove of it is when Mr. Bush modified his stand on environmental and the national energy policies.

It's very hard for someone that doesn't believe to do the right thing - this is why the push will and is being placed on policies that maintains centralized energy control.

Energy business of the past, will if left to there own judgment, choose the cheap replacement fuel that maintains their control - Because the market price of the total real world cost of this fuel is not included - the fuel of choice will be coal and nuclear for energy power plants, food stock for transporting - and this is now our policy under Bush.

The pessimists claimed that years ago -you are now living it! Do we follow the blind? We must reverse this - and that is why I'm voting for Mr. Dodd - Edwards is my second choice, or even Ron Paul - we need a President that has the opposing views - to balanced the interest of the energy companies that own members in the other two branches of our government.

Some one that thinks outside the box and is not afraid to speak his mind, to bite ones lip, to win a vote, is a person that is not honest with themselves, nor the people!

The worse part if we don't change our energy policies, competition for the remaining oil supplies will intensify, we have already started down this path of world war - with terrorists - but potentially leading to a new kind of political conflict: the energy war with other nations!

The stage for mistrust of the United States has been set - we are on a path that will bring Gods wrath...

How sure are you that judgment day will not find you without sin, if you help destroy the earth and the life's on it?

This is you choice - GOD has his plans, what's yours? Which deeds do you perform? Thus, when the oil peak comes - we must ask a rather pressing question?

Oil optimist forecast that we don't peak until around 2035 - this is hard to believe - first, oil demand is climbing faster than optimists had hoped, mainly because China and India, the sleeping giants are waking up to embrace a Western style high energy industrialism.

Thanks to the outsourcing of jobs by the United States Industries for cheep labor.

This means millions of new cars - The United States no longer makes a car that has real value, nor it seems can we complete on the world markets.

So again, we as a nation lose to other nations with industries that at one time had been ours, until big business sold the farm!

As oil demand is rising, oil discovery rates are falling in the United States. Oil can't be produced without first being found, and the rate at which oil companies are locating new oil fields in non wilderness areas is in serious decline.

Today, despite astonishing advances in exploration and production technology, the industry is finding just 12 billion new barrels of oil each year - less than half of what we use. This is one reason that oil prices have been climbing so high.

Oil companies, not surprisingly are getting very anxious. Despite the fact that the high oil prices are yielding massive company profits, companies are finding it harder and harder to replace the oil they sell with newly discovered barrels.

On average, for every 10 barrels sold, its exploration teams find just four new barrels - a trend that can only go on so long.

Indeed, most Western oil firms now say the only way to halt this side is to get back into the Middle East, which kicked them out during the OPEC ( Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries -This came about because of the oil companies greed and mistreatment of the host. ) nationalization of the 1960-70's.

This has, in fact, become the mantra of the oil industry: get us back into the Middle East or be prepared for trouble. And the George W. Bush administration had taken this message to heart by way of 9/11.

Now of course, the Middle East is not going to be the Promised Land - the Saudis and other oil states, as most of the world governments leaders are too corrupt, unstable and bankrupt to step up to the plate - unless the people stand up to force a "beyond petroleum movement" we shall be without hope.

The law of diminishing returns is the major reason why the United States has turned to foreign sources for most of its oil.

Each barrel of oil drawn from the earth causes the next one to be more difficult to obtain. The economic consequence is that it causes the cost to increase continuously.

We must now extract our raw materials from ever more degraded and inaccessible deposits. This means that ever more of our society's precious investment capital must be diverted to this process, which means less is available for consumption and real growth.

Why do you think most Americans are just one pay check away from the poorhouse! It cost less today to drill for oil then 50 years ago from prime ground sources - but finding prime sources today is next to imposable.

Our system can not survive without affordable energy, we'll all have to come together on this issue - rising oil prices will force this - but we can not take for granted that our leaders will get us on the right path.

We can't rely on good old fashioned capitalism and the profit motive to produce solutions, to kick start the best technology or crate the necessary infrastructure.

Private enterprise will play the long term role, but it can't start the ball based on the entrenched industrial infrastructure.

America's signal accomplishments during the twentieth century; whether winning wars / learning from losing them, building great public works, or landing a man on the moon - required intense and massive cooperation between the people, our public, private and government sectors. This will be an enormous challenge as an immense opportunity.

Whether we like to admit it or not, we are a country in dire need of new industries, as an ever greater portion of our manufacturing base is being transferred to low labor cost countries such as China, India and Mexico, our leadership rests almost entirely on our superiority in defense.

Is this a large enough "pig" to keep us safe? Maybe in the short term, but without cheep energy, even the strongest defense apparatus will grind down to a halt - does any one remember why the great tank battle of world war 2 was won? It wasn't because we had better tanks ;-).

If the U.S. can establish a leadership position in the development of alternative energies without out sourcing it, we'll not only have successfully met the challenge, but also built a vital new industry with new technologies that will spur economic growth.

What's required? Making a full fledged commitment to true renewals, by funding long range research and taking the steps needed in the short term to reduce the need for fossil fuels.

The sooner the better - our whole national mindset has to change. The exploiters well always say that it costs less to produce and burn the savings account of earths natural resources then keeping it in an savings account.

This is analogous to saying it takes less effort to rob a bank than to do the work which the money deposited in the bank represents.

The Question is cost to whom? Who will pay the cost? The answer is the children of tomorrow - We should find this the act of ignorant acceptance, the greed of not being willing to pay your share for our world society's presently deputized leaders of the momentarily expedient and the lack of constructive, long distance thinking - let alone comprehensive thinking ....

Render dubious the case for humanity's earthen future. The bottom line today puts the children of tomorrow in the red!

We are facing a momentous transition, one that requires real leadership and massive effort and funding, This transitional period will be marked by turbulence and a opportunity this world has not seen since the start of the industrial revolution. Most important, unless we truly blow things, it ultimately should result in a far Healthier planet for all.

We've known for a long time that we have to worry about the impacts of climate change on our children's and grandchildren's generations.

But we now have to worry about ourselves as well. By 2003, the signals were undeniable: Global climate change is threatening to spiral out of control - do you not love this? Mankind think we control the systems that GOD put forth... Now we shall learn the cost for this foolishness!

Nevertheless, by the end of 2003, most Americans were still in denial. By contrast, the science is unambiguous: to pacify our increasingly unstable climate requires humanity to cut its use of coal and oil by 70% or more in a very short time - the shorter the better.

Given the scope of the challenge, a real solution to the climate crisis seems to offer a historically unique opportunity to begin to mend a profoundly fractured world. Are you up to the job at hand? GOD is asking us to mend our ways - will you listen?

In 2001, researchers at the Hadley Center, Britain's main climate research institute, found that the climate will change 50 % more quickly then was previously assumed. They found that the rate of change is compounding.

Their projections show that many of the world's forests will begin to turn from sinks (vegetation that absorbs CO2) to sources (vegetation that releases CO2) dying off and emitting carbon.
You can see this today here in the parks of Portland - take a real good look at the trees in your neighborhood parks, what you'll find is a lot of dry rot, this from a city that is known in the past to be wet!

The other study, from the energy side, is equally troubling. In 2001, a team of researchers reported in the journal NATURE that unless the world is getting half its energy from noncarbon sources by 2018, we will see an inevitable doubling and possible tripling of atmospheric carbon levels later in this century.

Also in 2001, the issue was infused with a jolt of urgency. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the climate is changing far more rapidly then previously projected.

More then 2,000 scientists from 100 countries, participating in the largest and most rigorously peer reviewed scientific collaboration in history, reported to the U.N. , Earth's avg. temperature could rise as much as 10.4 degrees over the next 100 years. More then 60% higher then the same group predicted less then 6 years ago.

But the real news about climate change is not about its destructive potential. The real news lies in the extraordinary opportunity the climate crisis presents to us.

This is Gods real message to today's believers - not Pro life issues - No baby's will live if this issue is not addressed. What is the point of bring a child into a world that must live in a unloving house - as we know - baby's that are not healthy end up in state care where some end their life in prison.

Given how very central energy is to our existence, the big part of surprising the poor - which is appropriate to the magnitude of the problem, could also begin to reverse some very discouraging and destructive political and economic dynamics as well.

Nature's requirement that humanity cut its use of carbon fuels by 70% or more in a very short time leaves us with basically two choices.

1: We can regress into a far more primitive and energy poor lifestyle - One that will lead to a hellish life, where men turns on each other in their quest to control a barrel of oil at the cost of life.

2: We can push a global noncarbon renewable energy sources as the path to live a better life with the earth as a friend to be loved, for it's a reminder of Gods love.

Sources of real clean renewable energy would do much more than stave off the most disruptive manifestations of climate change.

Depending on how it is structured, a global transition to renewals energy could create huge numbers of new jobs, it could turn dependent and impoverished countries into robust trading partners, and provide many of the earth's most deprived inhabitants with a source of personal, future and individual purpose.

That same solution also contains the seeds for real security in a world that threatens to become polarized between totalitarians and terrorist. It could very well trigger a major change in many unsustainable practices that are threatening many other natural systems - the world's forests and oceans, for example.

It could be the prompt that reverses the kind of exaggerated nationalism that threatens to retribalize humanity.

Rather than hastening our regression into a more splintered, combative, and degraded world, it could be the springboard that propels us to be cooperative and coordinated global community.

The best part is it could provide the means that begins to put the people in charge of governments and governments in charge of corporations.

A program that outlines democratically determined boundaries around the operations of multinational corporations.

In the long run, the solutions to the climate crisis could establish equity as a universal human value and resuscitate participatory democracy as a governing operating principle that reorganizes our relationships to each other, to other nations, to the global economy, and most fundamentally, to the planet we call home in which we all depend.

Part Two;
Why not Coal?

While coal has made an contribution to economic and social development worldwide, its environmental impact is far to costly for the future, just like oil and nuclear.

In the United States today more than 1.1 billion tons of coal is consumed annually. Ninety-two percent of this is utilized in the production of electricity. The remaining percentage is used in the smelting of steel, as well as for other industrial applications and home heating.

Coal consumption in the U.S. is high because the nation has vast coal reserves (perhaps more the one third of the world's total), and this abundance has kept the price of coal low in comparison with other energy sources.

The United States exports huge quantities of coal, coupled with the exports of other large coal rich countries - has ensured that coal remains a cheap and reliable source throughout the globe.

Despite coal's appeal as an energy source, its use has very serious environmental drawbacks. Burning coal produces carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that has been linked to global warming.

Coal emissions also include nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury - all of which pose health threats to humans and wildlife, according to many experts.

Coal is not alone in its production of dangerous emissions, of course; all fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants when burned. Indeed, the burning of oil - mainly in the form of gasoline - is responsible for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions by volume.

Coal's pollutants, however, are still a major concern. In fact, the growing demand for electricity in developing countries has many analysts concerned that coal emissions will steadily increase.

Coal is dirtier then gasoline - there's just far more gas being burned then coal, and it's a very good thing that today's engines burn very clean.

In 2003 the International Energy Agency (IEA) noted that China's rapid industrialization increased energy demands by 14%, much of which was met with rising coal consumption.

Increases in global population also stain energy supplies - the reason a birth control policy is needed in every country that is helped.

If every family that is helped was required to be fixed after their second child as a condition to receive help shall improve a poor family conditions in life, their nation, and the worlds carbon emissions as a whole.

The IEA predicts that over the next thirty years, world energy demands will expand by 60%, and two thirds of the increase will occur in developing poor nations with very high populations. It's this outlook which carries a heavy CO2 burden...

In 2002, coal accounted for some 38% of the world energy related CO2 emissions. The increase in CO2 over the next 30 years mirrors the primary energy demand increase around 60% - for the world.

The environmental impact of coal is large amounts of pollution, which contribute to acid rain and global warming, and mining it is very damaging, as is transporting.

Most coal is moved around on trains which are powered by pollution casing diesel fuel - Biodiesel, Hydrogen / Nuclear Trains Engines may be cleaner - but most train tracks follow rivers, and coal with water is never a good thing.

The pollution caused by burning coal has dogged its use from early times - in the late thirteenth century King Edwards was compelled to issues a ban on the burning of coal because Londoners were so overwhelmed by the smoke of coal.

However, it was not until 1960s that coal's potentially dangerous emissions became the target of an environmental backlash.

With the rise of ecology movements throughout industrial nations, pollution became an urgent issue, and environmentalists began calling for an end to coal use. The newly formed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency passed laws regulating power plant emissions.

The law that had the most impact on the coal industry was the *1970 Clean Air Act, which aimed to improve air quality by reducing the amount of harmful emissions produced by fossil fuel and chemical polluters.

*Note: This is why Mr. Bush had targeted the EPA from the first days through today by removing it's powers and will to enforce environmental laws.

In response, electric utilizes turned to nuclear power! This was the makings of what was seen as a perfect partnership, between utilities and government...

Government needed a cheep means to get nuclear bomb material, utilities had a protected market and the public was told that nuclear power was clean, it would be if there was no radioactive waste!

Faced with EPA regulations, the coal power industry was forced to reduce emissions. Why is it that big business have the mind set that the public is stupid?

Yes, most of the public may not care about the environment - that is until it's there backyard, but why not stand up and do right and be a leader instead of playing games to get the last buck out of a dieing horse.

When big business and governments lie or fight the people - the people stop believing in them, and this leads to law suites because of the lack of trust.

With EPA regulations, coal power industry was forced to reduce emissions. Such fixes have been relatively inexpensive - Carbon dioxide emissions, however, have yet to be so cheaply and easily remedied.

In 1997 a world summit was held in Kyoto, Japan to devise ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and slow global warming.

The resulting Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect in 2005 required developed nations to reduce CO2 output by 5% between 2008 and 2012.

The agreement was historic because it showed a worldwide willingness to transition from fossil fuels to cleaner renewals.

The United States under the administration of George W. Bush however, did not ratify the protocol and thus abide by its terms - thanks in large part to the lobbying of the coal and other CO2 emissions producing industries - throwing a monkey wrench into what could have been the most historic moment in mans industrial history - only to follow it with the so called Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) which was launched in 2002.

The CPPI is rewarding the coal industry for experimenting with new techniques to reduce carbon emissions. The aim of the CCPI is to keep coal a mainstay of American power at a time when the citizens of America and the worlds environmental priorities favor alternative energy programs.

America is not alone in addressing the challenges of continued reliance on coal, a host of 3rd world developing nations view it as the key to economic growth.

China, India as others poor nations that do not have the means - unlike the U.S. that has turned its back to the developed nations to cast its lot on coal!

Is Mr. Bush telling the world that America is becoming the new 3rd world nation?

The majority of coal pollutants in the twenty first century, may not come from the industrialized nations - but from east Asia and the globalizing nations of Africa, following with the United States.

This fact will likely not deter its use in the coming years, but it may help speed the global demand for coal and its vital role in the world's energy systems, setting coal to continue - whether the world can balance the energy benefits of coal with its environmental impact is yet to be determined.

Big money is pouring into "clean coal" hyped as an environmentally friendly resource that can keep the lights on and break our dependence on foreign oil, but some critics - like myself, a common high school drop out, a person that big business thinks of as stupid, question whether the investment is worth it!

Is their a hidden agenda of evil? A means to destroy God's world? Why would a government harm its citatizens?

The Bush administration been spending about $400 million a year on coal research, not much compared with the $1.3 billion spent annually on other resources.

But the administration aim is another $2 billion for its clean coal program, on top of $2 billion in subsidies for coal sector.

Sen. John Kerry had pledged to spend $10 billion on clean coal technology, including $2 billion to demonstrate the commercial viability of clean coal.

At an election times - when votes in coal producing states could produce swings - these promises come as little surprise in the game to win the golden ring of being the next President of the United States of America.

Few disagree that the nation needs alternate, more efficient source of energy. But critics say that newer "clean coal" technology, for all its promised benefits, is expensive.

And some say that the technology, despite its positive sounding name, will create expensive environmental headaches at the cost of better renewals, in a time that global warming solutions was needed 30+ years ago!

With nuclear and hydro resources pretty much tapped out, it comes down to a debate between coal and natural gas - as far as the utilities care...

According to the EIA, coal is plentiful and cheap, with domestic supplies projected to last two centuries or more, and there's an infrastructure in place. And with the electricity demand expected to grow sharply in coming decades, proponents say clean coal is the way to go.

Some big companies are betting heavily on the technology - General Electric (research) and Bechtel are jointly developing a model for coal gasification plants, which convert coal into a gas.

The plants are considered the most vaunted of the clean coal technologies by the EIA and the coal industry leaders.

Clean coal plants are not cheap to build, and cost to dispose of their waste are steep! Bechtel said the initial cost to build a coal gasification plant is 25% more then a medium sized conventional coal fired power plant.

A conventional plant cost about $780 million to build, according to Bechtel, so a comparable coal gas plant would cost about $975 million.

There are a lot of parallels between coal and nuclear energy - both power plants are really expensive to build and there's an issue of disposing of the waste that could get really costly environmentally - but claims to be clean!

In the ways we've look at pollution in the past, from the burning of coal - coal has cleaned up. But the problems of mining and the bigger problem we face now is how is carbon dioxide, which clean coal plants still emit must be dealt with!

Many ways of taking care of carbon dioxide are being studied, particularly carbon sequestration - trapping and holding CO2 is the most popular method of dealing with emissions from by the clean coal gas plants; and it's part of President Bush's Future Gen initiative to create the world's first zero emissions fossil fuel power plant.

The claim is a lie! It can not be zero emissions if carbon dioxide is still in its natural state - pumping it into old oil/gas wells is the same as nuclear waste being dump... It may be out of site, but it can come back and bite your ass!

Trapping carbon is expensive. For an average traditional coal fired plant, which produces some 750 million tons of carbon a year, the annual cost of trapping CO2 is about $31million a year.

Analyst and environmentalist say there's little evidence to show this process will work - if it all leaks, then you're right back where you started, plus you've wasted all that money!

There is one area that this sequestration process has a very worth wild application with little risk - if the sequestration of carbon dioxide gas was pumped into old burning coal mines, it may help put out the coal fire by removing the oxygen!

If this worked, then the gasification coal plant would be money very well spent and environmentally good - but only for that reason.

During the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth, many people had coal burning stoves. Between 1940 and 1980 the amount of coal used by electrical power plants doubled every year.

Coal also powers factories that make paper, iron, steel, ceramics, and cement. It can be used to make syngas (a contraction of the words synthetic gas) - Syngas is primarily a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen that is produced in coal gasification.

Gasification has been around for at least 100 years, in the United States it wasn't utilized during the first half of the century because petroleum and natural gas were inexpensive and plentiful.

In the 1970's utility companies began considering gasification as a way to meet stricter environenmental laws.

The greatest problem with coal gasification is cost and it requires vest amounts of water, which creates a problem for gasification to be cost effective.

The plants must be built near coal mines so that the coal does not have to travel far, and most coal mines in the United States are in western states, where water is limited and expensive.

On the environmental level, gasification has the potential to make coal a much less polluting fossil fuel. However, it will not much of a impact on the environmental destruction caused by coal mining!

Economically, coal gasification is less efficient then burning coal directly; 30 - 40% of coal's energy is lost during the process of converting it to gas.

Gasification would hardly be worth the cost of production if it were not for the environmental benefits it offers.

Using improved coal gasification techniques - by means of chemicals called catalysts (what's there harm), could allow gasification to occur at lower temperature making the process less expensive. Some believe that the answer is to carry out gasification inside the mine. This idea is attractive!

The drawbacks of using coal is air, water pollution and mining. Air pollution from burning coal has carbon monoxide, soot, acid rain (sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitrogen oxides), coal ash (lead, arsenic, barium, and other compounds).

Water pollution (Black Water) from mining waste impoundments hold billion -if not trillions of gallons of waste water, rock, and mining's toxic byproducts, including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium and sulphuric acid. In West Virginia there are 136 such dams!

Coal mining on the surface (strip) can leave huge holes in the land and even destroy by the removal of entire mountains.

Underground mining of coal leaves behind tunnels which can collapse suddenly. The water that flow over/out of mine sites can flush pollution into streams and rivers.

Some times the coal inside a mine will catch fire - it can be nearly impossible to put out this kind of fire.

A coal deposit in Tajikistan has supposedly been burning underground since 330 BCE when Alexander the Great visited the area.

A network of coal mines in Centralia, Pennsylvania caught fire in 1962 and is still burning. Hundreds of coal mines are burning in the United States, but many more are burning in China, India and other places.

In addition, coal mining produce tailings (coal wastes) that are put in large piles above ground that can also catch fire and burn for decades.

If you really wish to learn from a person that lives with the mining; contact Julia Bonds tiny grassroots organization known as Coal River Mountain Watch.

For many environmentalists these problems have an obvious solution: stop mining and the burning of coal. While coal's friends and foes spar over environmental issues, advocates of other fuel sources are eagerly watching.

Over the next decade or so, we're in a jam! We are a very energy intensive world, and we must set realistic options to keep the world turning as we grow in the future... The United States must now catch up to, and surpass Europe's lead if we wish to stay strong!

While coal use dropped 30% over the last 15 years in Europe, the U.S. is burning more coal then ever. Europe is investing in biofuels of non food base stock, the U.S. in corn, soybean and others food stocks. An easy - but not, the best way to make biomass fuel.

Environmental grassroots' activism is the key, big business have long pillaged and raped our lands for its natural resources, and at first, to most that was acceptable, because it provided jobs.

Then came machines, importation of labor (low skilled - during world war 2), offshore relocation of jobs (the 70's - date), followed by the importation of high skill labor (80's to date).

A fine line between supporting real renewals (a future without finite fossil fuels - and a wolf in sheep skin (clean energy that's not really clean)!

We must lobby elected officials to increase economic diversity in the world by bring in jobs in alternative energy.

The answer is very simple - attacking energy waste is the cheapest and cleanest thing we can do to address the energy crisis!

I have no ethical problem with making dirty things cleaner, but by simple investing in energy efficiently we can create millions of jobs and reduce are overall pollution as we save money, by not buying over sea's oil.

We need to replace 70% of our Electric energy use in order to reduce today's nuclear and coal demand - It can be done within a few years, in the time that it would take to build one new nuclear power plant!

Maximum energy efficiencies should be job number one! This money once spent, always pays back. The more we save now the less money that will be lost to middle eastern oil - this alone makes this money very well invested, for the money stays at home.

Part Three

Nuke Me Baby

Nuclear power from fission can ever be an alternative renewable energy source from Uranium.

Radioactive waste is classified as low or high level - ninety-nine percent of all radioactive waste is low level, meaning it will remain significantly radioactive and dangerous for only 300 - 500 years.

In these waste the maximum level of radioactivity is up to 1,000 times the amount considered acceptable in the environment.

About 63% of this waste (but 94% of the radioactivity) originates in nuclear power plants, the rest comes from hospitals, research laboratories, manufacturing and military facilities of R@D and nuclear weapons.

Today the only way to reduce the volume of nuclear waste is to use it in a fast-breeder reactor - sounds good, but this solution has a few bugs.

One; this high level waste is very highly radioactive - 10,000's of years

Two; it brakes nuclear arms reduction agreements - very bad

The federal government has spent decades and billions of dollars trying to establish a geologic repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, only to learn within a few years their will be more then Yucca Mountain could hold - and there has been no work on the second repository.

Low level wastes are usually stored in metal drums, commonly after being burned in special incinerators to reduce their volume, and either stored aboveground in vast "holing pens" or buried in shallow trenches beneath about 3 feet of soil. The practice is not a very long term solution.

We have learned the metal drums corrode over time, and stress is placed on them by the continuous radiation from the material in the drums.

Many drums at some early sites have leaked radioactive liquids into the soil and ground water. Can any one say Hanford?

Tens of thousands of tons of waste has been dumped at a international agreed site in the Atlantic Ocean 1,300 miles form England. The problem with this approach is that as the drums begin to leak, a process that may already have begun - fish that swim in the radioactive ocean water become irradiated.

When the smaller fish are eaten by larger fish the effects of the irradiation are spread in an ever widening circle whose end is very unclear - but can not be good!

Clearly, a safer method for storage of these drums is needed. One of the safest method that my Brains can think of is to store them in long buildings -the rooms could be sealed as the building is enlarged, as the years go by.

This method would keep water from the drums, and be continuously monitored for a few centuries until it is no longer hazardous and could be land filled.

The building should be put in trenches (excavations) tens of feet below ground -this way the waste is not directly buried as the NRC would do now.

And yet still be far above ground water tables in arid or semi arid areas of land outside of fault zones. I have other Ideas that should work and be cheaper too! If the NRC wish to know - they can contact me.

High level waste will be dangerously radioactive for at least tens of thousands of years. It is estimated that less then one gallon of waste would be enough to bring every person to the danger level for radiation exposure if it was evenly distributed. There are now @ 100 million gallons in storage at 158 sites in 40 states.

What of the rest of the world? Sweden, Finland, Japan and Switzerland are the only countries that succeeded in having repository sites for high level waste accepted by their citizens.

The US is in pending lawsuits! *If a rail tunnel from the Unite States to Russia was build - Chernobyl and / or Kyshtym could become a world dump of high level waste.

In 1982 Congress required a search for a suitable site for storing the nation's ever growing accumulation of high level nuclear waste. In 1987 the Department of Energy settled on Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The feasibility studies have cost $4 billion.

As of 2001, the facility itself is projected to cost $57.5 billion, up 26% from the estimate made by the Department of Energy only 3 years earlier. It now sets tried up in lawsuits by the state of Nevada and other (NIMBY) groups opposed to the site.

Movement of high level waste from the present 131 storage sites in 39 states to Yucca Mountain was set to begin in 1985. But because of the lawsuits, the opening was pushed back to 1989, then 1998, then 2003, and now 2010 - few would bet on this!

Nevada's state official Robert Loux stated; " I think we can keep them (that's the rest of the United States) out of the site for decades." In the meantime, high level waste continues to accumulate at the nation's reactors.

The nuclear power companies claim that their storage areas are full or nearly full and demand immediate action from the federal government. The current terrorist threat has increased the urgency of their demands.

Since 9/11, Americans have become aware that trucks and trains carrying nuclear waste are tempting terrorist targets.

Of course, the transportation problem will be similar for any storage site. It brings to mind the old expression about being caught between a rock and a hard place!

To transport the high level waste to Yucca Mountain, more than 150,000 shipments of vitrified waste through 45 states would be made over 30 years, 3-4,000 shipments per year. That's about 10 shipments per day, 365 days a year, for 30 years.

This waste would pass through or close to many highly populated regions and has been sending shudders down a sane person's spine.

I guess we could use Blackwater Security with diplomatic immunity to guard all nuclear waste transports - who would get in their way?

Containers for transporting nuclear waste on average contain three tons of protective shields for every ton of waste transported.

The transport of waste is far safer then the accumulations stockpiled in drums, to think the industry solution for short term storage in the past was steel drums makes you ask what were they thinking about?

Test standards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are rigorous. Containers must not leak after a thirty foot freefall, a forty inch drop onto a 6 inch diameter steel rod, thirty minutes in a 1,475 degree fire, and eight hours under three feet of water. In a separate test, the containers are submerged under fifty feet of water for eight hours.

Staged accidents have included testing containers placed on a flatbed truck, which was crashed into a solid wall at eighty miles per hour, broad siding a truck with a 120 ton locomotive traveling at eighty miles per hour, and dropping a container two thousand feet with an impact speed of 238 miles per hour.

In all cases the containers remained intact. Maybe if they did the same thing to just one container - we would really know how good the containers are?

SORRY Nevada - Its public safety, this state has for years received large cash from Congress in the form of military bases and R@D projects - In fact, if it was not for a dam and the lake that makes life livable - this state would never grown in to any thing to talk about - and the dam that made this happen was also paid for by the other 49 states.

The sin is you're a good site - the Atomic R@D's of the past has already tainted your ground - you have no reason to hold up Yucca, past bomb sites, nor Area 51...

If you had Atomic R@D in the past and have the right conditions, then you have no voice - for your need of the past in helping make this mess removes your tongue...

I'm not talking about world war 2 R@D - if your a state that after 1946, that went after the Atomic programs, then live with it!

The way waste is handled in the past, as it is today, is a joke, to safety! And this fact along, is reason not to build any more nuclear power plants.

Now add the fact, that the first experimental fast reactor build in 1951, EBR-1 sited in Idaho at a US government base in 1955 nearly blew, from a runaway chain reaction caused by fuel creeping.

In half of one second, if a scientist bystander had not the presence of mind to press the button that allowed the reactor core to drop away (bringing the chain reaction to a end) - this is how close just one of many nuclear accidents, that has been hidden, has been to a runaway reaction.

The Fermi fast reactor, less the 20 miles outside Detroit, began life in 1963 and had innumerable teething problems.

Three years after opening - as a operators were taking the reactor up to full power, a loose metal flange jammed across some fuel elements and prevented the flow of liquid sodium coolant.

Luckily the accident was limited to just one side of the core, and luckily too is the fact that the operators managed to prevent a major explosion. If not, Detroit would have been lost!

The notorious fire at the Yorkshire, England - Windscale No. 1 plutonium pile in October 1958, was at the time, the worst known accident to hit the nuclear industry in the western part of the world!

It resulted from the building up -of pent up energy, because of the constant bombardment by neutrons. Something went very wrong, the graphite overheated to the point where it caught fire, even though it was bathed with hot carbon dioxide gas.

The intense heat caused uranium fuel to catch fire, it and the graphite started to burn furiously together, fortunately (though as an after though) the designers had added a filter to the reactor chimney; without this the release of volatile fission products; iodine, cesium and strontium, as well as small particles of plutonium would have been much worse.

As it was, as much as 20,000 curies of iodine -131 escaped into the atmosphere, which with the remaining radionuclide may have resulted in up to 1,000 premature deaths.

Nuclear accidents do not only happen to occur within a reactor, the Soviet Union had experienced an explosion in a nuclear waste repository at Kyshtym, which devastated more than 13,000 square kilometers, and - like Chernobyl would later do - led to villages and cities being evacuated - it's not known how many deaths resulted.

Like so many nuclear accidents - this would never been known about, if someone didn't say something about it!

Government has a habits of trying to keep things from being known.

Just before Windscale inquiry in 1977, Mr. Zhores Medvedev an ex - Soviet scientist that had carried out radio ecological studies at Flora and Fauna in the Kyshtym area, before defecting to the UK, pointed to Kyshtym as exemplifying, some of the risks associated with nuclear waste management.

The then head of the UK - Atomic Energy Authority, Sir John Hill publicly derided Medvedev by announcing the Kyshtym disaster was "rubbish -- a figment of the imagination... pure science fiction."

But radio-isotope analysis later carried out at the US government's Oak Ridge Laboratory, showed that the accident had probably resulted from the failure of a cooling system in a nuclear waste repository.

On March 28th. of 1979 - on this day, reactor 1 was shut down for refueling, but reactor 2 was at 97% of its capacity when at thirty-six seconds past 4am., the movement of water through the secondary cooling system stopped because of a blockage.

This started a chain reaction tha

I'd be interested in discussing my methods of manufacturing components using existing tools that are freely web accessible.
I have spent time researching CAD and 3D modeling and have found ways of distributing patterns and constructing objects with the least amount of machinery and technology.
These methods could be used to manufacture wind generators and other things. Access to a CNC machine would be useful, but in theory all one should need is a printer, materials and a few tools.

"5) Send us three ideas about things you’d like to write about: Include a one- or two-sentence pitch for each idea. Address what the story would be about, why it’s a good fit for TH, and include a link to more information."

Yikes! That sounds an awful lot like you are fishing for free material. Is there really even a job position available?

If so, why will you not respond to the requests for more information, such as salary range, etc.?

OK SEE GOOGLE "NEW ENRGY DAY" APRIL 21ST A DAY TO ENCOYRAGE RENEWABLE GEEN ENERGY AND FUELS! ASLO SEE GLOBAL ENRGY INDPENDENCE DAY www.telasociety.com HELD EVERY JULY 10TH THE BIRTHADTE ANNIVERSARY OF NIKOLA TESLA(1856-1943) A GREAT ENRGY PIONEER. THANKS!

I've got a strong passion for 'going, being, doing Green'.

I've also got a strong knowledge base of Alternative energy. Better yet, I know someone who came up with a lot of alternative energy technologies.

I'd be interested in blogging- if I could do it as a partnership. My friend knows this stuff like the back of his hand- and I bet he could suggest to you some viable, easy, interesting alternatives you've never even heard of.
I'm talking everything from REAL alternative fuels, the true meaning of solar, everything you ever wanted to know about diesel, biomimicry, the whole nine yards. You name it, we can talk about it.

I know some basic HTML, never really blogged but I've seen it done and I've been told I'm a creative and interesting writer. I'd be his voice. He'd choose the topic and tell me all about it- I'd convert into something fun to read. I can do some basic photomanip and editing, too.

Did you mean SEO principles, not, "SEO principals?" I find it sad that an advertisement for a journalist, or well, blogger, uses the wrong spelling.

We're doing it.

Going completely off the grid in Canada.

Architects and Mechancial Engineers designing urban, suburban and rural offgrid and Net-Zero homes. We'll be posting plans and elevations for the World to see.

State of the art Solar, wind, and geothermal technologies.

http://www.Offgrid-Living.com

We're doing it.

Going completely off the grid in Canada.

Architects and Mechancial Engineers designing urban, suburban and rural offgrid and Net-Zero homes. We'll be posting plans and elevations for the World to see.

State of the art Solar, wind, and geothermal technologies.

http://www.Offgrid-Living.com

We're doing it !

Going completely off the grid in Canada.

Architect and Mechanical Engineers designing urban, suburban and rural off-grid and Net-Zero homes. We'll be posting plans and elevations for the world to see.

The latest in Solar, Wind and Geothermal technologies.