Green Chip Living is a blog by Green Chip Stocks focusing on Green and Sustainable Living
The U.S. has the largest amount of spent nuclear waste in the world, yet it does not have a single permanent nuclear waste storage site.
In fact, it's quite shocking that thousands of tons of dangerous nuclear waste continue to be put in temporary locations waiting to start a new disaster in the Fukushima pattern. Note: The greatest danger and fallout from the recent nuclear disaster was due to spent nuclear rods.
The largest U.S. site that was being constructed at Yucca Mountain never came to fruition as it has long been mired in controversy - despite millions of dollars that had already being spent. And the Blue Ribbon Commission has failed to bring the process any closer with Energy Secretary Chu saying that several permanent nuclear waste storage sites are still needed. However even one looks like a distant dream with tons of nuclear waste being added every day.
Nuclear Waste Storage in USA is a complete Mess
It's not widely known that Honda is a manufacturer of CIGS thin film solar panels
The company's actually been in the solar panel manufacturing business for about four years now, although its capacity remains quite small, and its panels aren't the most efficient. Like many conglomerates, Honda too entered the solar industry during the boom times and is now finding the business a tough one to make work.
Of course, it should be noted that Honda is a marginal palyer in the global solar business. And while the company has no intention of leaving the solar game, it has decided to use its solar panels to power its own dealerships and auto plants.
It is likely that Honda's CIGS panels aren't flying off the shelves. So instead of letting them sit around and collect dust, they've decided to put them to work. Not a bad idea.
Here's a promotional video that Honda put together to show their solar panels in action. . .
Last week, my son, a college freshman, sat down to his first class in philosophy.
First, can someone tell me why philosophy isn’t taught in high school? Is there some reason we think we need to shelter kids from life’s great questions until they’re older? I never taught the subject formally, though I tutored quite a few undergraduates while I was in graduate school, which often caused me to wonder how I would construct my own “101” course if I happened to be in that position, and at what age group I would present it.
What happened when mankind evolved to the point, about 10,000 years ago, that we had a solid grasp on basic agricultural principles, and so no longer needed to roam, hunting for and gathering food in a nonstop life-and-death struggle? What happened when we started to look up into the heavens — and the questions started to flow: Who made all this stuff? Why are we here? What happens when we die?
I’d certainly get the kids into questions like that – “speculative philosophy” as it’s called. But I wouldn’t do so at the expense of “moral philosophy,” whose questions are different, though no easier: What is the nature of our responsibilities to others? What does it mean to say I have a “right” to do or have something? A “duty?” And from what do these rights and duties come? The bible? Our conscience? The mores of our group?
I bring this up because the debate about energy really unfolds along these lines. It boils down to this:
If we really don’t have a duty to anyone but ourselves, we can serve the world’s energy needs very well with fossil fuels. Yes, we’re running out of oil, but not right this minute. Yes, fossil fuels more generally are ruining our health and our environment, but they’re by far the cheapest way to power our civilization at this point in time. People who scoff at the idea of a duty to others say, “Look, we can generate baseload electricity with coal at about three cents a kilowatt-hour. If that creates a problem, that’s too damn bad. Until someone can beat three cents, we’ll burn coal. ”
Yes, there is no doubt that we can do that. But don’t all people have certain rights — and others among us certain duties — that make this a more interesting question?
I continue to be surprised by the bad and shallow analysis of renewable energy subsidies done by the mainstream media.
Most of it is due to bad research and lack of investigative and unbiased journalism. And many writers with little or no background in energy or cleantech, sensationalize an issue by taking a report from some biased think tank and presenting it as an unbiased analysis. Here is one example from a website ironically called Reason.com.
What the writer is saying is that Germany is spending massive amounts of subsidies to get a very little amount of power. Now here's what he missed:
1) He is not comparing the subsidies for solar with the subsidies of fossil fuels. Does he know that Fossil Fuel Subsidies globally amount to $550 billion a year, which is many times more than that given to Solar, Wind and other forms of renewable energy? .Even a developed country like Norway gives 5 times more subsidies to fossil fuels than renewable energy
2) He says that 18 billion euros is the cost of solar energy over 20 years . He conveniently forgets/does not know the basic concept of time value of money.
3) He does not consider the costs on health, pollution, mining deaths and other social costs of fossil fuel-based electricity. He forgets to mention the BP Oil Spill and the Fukushima Disaster.
4) He says it is cheaper to do energy efficiency than solar energy, a fact that is already well known. But will energy efficiency alone solve our global warming problems. Nobody doubts the fact that energy efficiency is cheaper, but you need cleaner power generation as well.
Mainstream media is woefully inadequate at presenting the problems we are faced with, particularly when it comes to a topic as complex and vilified as climate change. Taking a report and presenting it without a balanced opinion just makes it worse.
Read more on Pros and Cons of Renewable Energy here
Thanks to a handful of Russian and American investors, city streets in Russia will soon be equipped with 2,000 electric car charging stations.
Check it out. . .
I read an article this morning that highlighted some data released by BP and Exxon that suggests electric cars will only make up between 4 to 5 percent of the global market in 20 to 30 years.
Now I wonder how BP and Exxon came up with this data? (Insert sarcastic tone here)
Of course, I've also seen my fair share of questionably optimistic studies claiming that in 30 years, electric vehicles will make up 70 percent of the global market. I feel confident that both projections are extremely inaccurate.
The truth is, electric vehicles are likely to claim about 3 percent of the global market in about 10 to 12 years. And by 2042 (30 years from now), electric vehicles will probably represent about 15 percent of the global market.
Now I could be way off, too. But based on the first year sales of the Volt and the LEAF (which were quite impressive, despite what the media bullies and partisan slaves like to claim), the cost of oil production over the next 20 to 30 years, the projected decrease in battery costs, and just a more superior electric vehicle boasting 500-mile ranges and 10-minute quick charges, I find it difficult to believe that in 30 years at least 15 percent of the global vehicle market won't be electric.
In fact, I think 15 percent is actually quite conservative.
Let's face it: The internal combustion engine is an outdated technology. On a technological level, it simply cannot compete with what electric vehicles can offer. Now BP does expect the efficiency of combustion engines to double by 2030. And this would actually be a big deal if it wasn't going to happen around the same time the average range of an electric car will be 500 miles!
Nice try guys. But I think we'll just go ahead and continue to focus on progress.
TEDxWomen reporter Gayle Tzemach gives a very inspirational presentation on women entrepreneurs. Her take on this subject is one that serves as an indicator of where the global economy is moving.
Check it out. . .
More and more you hear about new “breakthroughs” with regards to internal combustion engines. They get more efficient and the cars fitted with them can achieve better fuel economy.
The question is, is this delaying, or even putting off the electric vehicle?
I think these “breakthroughs” are just small improvements; some final efforts to try and maintain the old status quo. Yes, for the immediate future, improving fuel economy on conventional cars can do a lot of good, especially if you consider that electric vehicles are not within everyone's reach today.
Baby Steps
The improvements for the internal combustion engine are small steps that should really have been taken a long time ago. But it is only now with the current awareness on fuel conservation, that engines have become more efficient.
Before there was no real, urgent need. So calling them breakthroughs is giving them a bit more credit than they deserve.
As well, I find the thought that the internal combustion will ‘win’ over the electric vehicle is amusing. Given the potential benefits of the electric drive train, there really is no reason to continue our reliance on gasoline and diesel. And let's face it: Ultimately, the only true ‘winner’ if you want to call it that should be the people who can enjoy a cleaner world and a car that's always full when you go to work in the morning.
Step One
For the immediate future, it is clear that the goal is simply better fuel economy. And right now, conventional hybrids are the best solution for the masses.
Sure, the electric vehicle can provide the goal of zero emissions and zero reliance on petroleum. But given that many folks still don't have easy access to electric vehicles (due to cost and production volumes) we will likely have to wait a few more years before we see more electric vehicles on the road. In the meantime, hybrids or vehicles with better fuel economy can provide a lot of consumers with an intermediate before the electric vehicle is ready to go on main stage.
Step Two
Once the electric vehicle market has matured a bit more, and these vehicles can provide a bit more range, and when the charging infrastructure is more widely adopted (and interoperability is a standard!), the big breakthrough of the electric vehicle will happen.
At that point it simply becomes a common sight in the streets, just like any other vehicle you see today.
This is going to happen. And it's going to happen a lot faster than most people realize.
Just drop your email into the box
below to sign up:
You'll immediately receive The Wind Power Advantage--our breakthrough report from alternative energy expert Jeff Siegel.
Your privacy is assured.
Is TransCanada misleading the American public by claiming that the Keystone Pipeline will be built with American steel?
Read the Grid Parity Blog
By Green Chip Stocks
Subscribe to