• McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.
• McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.
• McCain said oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.
• He promised to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.
• He called for "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce.

Once again, where the hell is the media? Why is there more interest in whether Sarah Palin makes McCain look old than there is in whether he bothered to tell the truth in his speech? Tell your friends about it. We could have another liar in the White House come January.

The marketer's biggest concern involves creating the possibility for green mental flashes to go off, exposing as many potential green activists to become/promote/join/involve/act.... right?  Inclusion in a blog would be a great bonus for any company's marketing team, yet another method of getting the word out.  Right?  Marketing = more people know what's going on.  Knowledge is power.  Power is action.  Thus, Marketing = action.  That's the point, right?

I'm particularly interested in this particular green company's marketing team.  Before I throw myself at them and ask to join their team, I'd like to know how the team works (in general).  I just want to know how they're doing their marketing.  I want to compare this certain company with the other companies I've found who do similar things in different parts of the world.  I think it's an interesting study.  So I emailed a questions and got a response:  she send me letter to the appropriate party and she'll get back to you.  Yes! The wrote me back!

A week goes by, I email again, still hoping to learn about XY and Z from the marketing department, yada yada nada.  A week goes by.  A phone call.  So you have some questions.  Yes, I do.  Phone call guy, an assistant marketer, asked that I send him an email of my questions so he could answer them.

Curious about the marketing of your company.  Your membership growth from opening until now is X  in 3 years:  What's your rate of new member acquisition?  I'd love to hear about the process, do you go to them?  Do they come to you?  Do your members refer friends who become new members?  Are they rewarded for that?  Who were your first members?  Did the company have a prior relationship with them before they became members?

The last question might be prying.  But I wrote in the letter that that question wasn't the important one.  I'm just curious if the owner set up his membership based organization knowing who the founding members would be before hand.  I've run a few membership-based businesses, stating in their 6th monthafter opening.  I wasn't there for the very beginning.  I'm curious about the first month of operations...

A week later, the evening of labor day, wrote another note mentioning that I was still interested in my questions.  I wanted it to be in the top of the email stack the next morning after the long weekend.  A week now, still nothing.

The mid-term marks for this campaign and the marketing department gets an F in fulfilling their mandate.  A green marketing team, it is not.  How is the self-regulated Greenhouse gas emissions market going to develop if information about new members is withheld after such direct questioning?  I would think that I was a bonus, an easy sell, a prey to be led down the path right into the jaws of awaiting organization, ready to inculcate me into their ranks and secure my continue membership for life.  Or maybe I know someone who wants to join.  Maybe my dad runs a giant toy manufacturing plant in China and I might have the connections to potentially break international borders on this idea.  How are we supposed to grow if those individuals in charge of growth are not even putting their best efforts into informing the global community of all their possibilities.  Maybe that's thinking too big for some people, but ultimately, isn't that the point?

Does anyone who markets for a living or is involved with spreading the word, the good word, the new word, the green word, or professional involved in communications, marking, sales etc basically anyone... How of/on base is this?  When a question is asked of a membership-based business, or any business based on the new business practices of transparency and accountability (I know it's funny that those are newish concepts...) isn't getting an answer an important part of the connection making process?  That might eventually lead to a sale/close/new member/ or spread of knowledge at the very least?

The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) and the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) state that the proposed wind farm would be visible from as far as 34 miles on the Appalachian Trail. According to the article, the project to build these turbines was rejected in 2007. The AMC and ATC argue that aesthetics are not the only reason as to why they oppose these turbine farms built on mountains. “Mountaintop development requires clearing land and building access roads, which could harm wildlife and damage fragile ecosystems.”

The AMC and ATC are not completely opposed to turbine projects on the condition that short and long-term environmental impacts are considered. Because there are no federal regulations as to where wind farms can be built, the organizations will use GIS data to scope out potential development sites. Although AMC scientist, Dave Publicover, feels it is more appropriate to put a turbine farm where other human uses are already active, he states “If we’re going to find a solution, everybody will have to accept some changes. For hikers, that could soon mean turbine blades spinning on the horizon.”

While environmental protection is very important, I still feel that when it comes to wind turbines aesthetics seem to play a big role. Reading this article reminded me of my visit to the Governor’s Island Science and Art exhibition, where I watched Andrea Polli’s short video, “The Queensbridge Wind Power Project.” In the video Polli argues that turbines on the Queensbridge can actually contribute to aesthetics in numerous ways. They can help replace what was lost by the removal of the lights which were putting a $75,000 price tag on the city. Furthermore, the turbines would not only produce renewable energy to light the bridge, but the walkways of Roosevelt Island, and more. To learn more about the Queensbridge Wind Power Project by watching the short video click here.

The worst element of his plan is his call to "open new markets." I suppose that has an appeal to the uninformed. It sounds like a plan to increase exports. That would be fine if that's how it worked. What was unsaid is that the only way to open new markets is open our market further as well. This is exactly the blind trade approach that has resulted in a cumulative trade deficit of $9 trillion since 1975, growing at an annual rate of three quarters of a trillion dollars. It's an expansion of the policy of trading away our healthy market while getting access to stunted markets in return, if we get access at all. It has often been said that doing more of the same while expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

And, as if to underscore his lack of even a basic understanding of our trade picture, while promising to "drill, drill, drill," he repeated once again the erroneous claim that arose from the T. Boone Pickens TV ad. "$700 billion per year is sent overseas to people who don't like us very much," implying that that's how much we spend on foreign oil in the Middle East and other places like Venezuela. I thought my head would explode when I heard that lie proclaimed once again, but this time so forcefully in front of a national audience. Perhaps if Joe Lieberman were standing next to him, he could have whispered in his ear and corrected him. "Psssst. John! That's not right. $700 billion is our total trade deficit. Only about a third of that is spent on foreign oil, and only a fraction of that goes to the Middle East." (For the benefit of those unaware, the T. Boone Pickens ad never claimed that we spend $700 billion per year on foreign oil. Pickens said that "We send $700 billion per year to foreign countries." By plopping our trade deficit figure into an ad for breaking our dependence on foreign oil, he bolstered his case without technically making an exaggeration. Watch the ad again. You'll see that I'm right.)

As I've said before, this calls into question whether McCain lacks the intellectual curiosity that one needs to make informed decisions. The man has admitted to being computer-illiterate. He doesn't even use E-mail. Shouldn't anyone being considered for president show at least enough curiosity about what has become a critical element of our economy to be able to handle the basics, like E-mail? If he had, in about five minutes he could have Googled "trade deficit," gone straight to the U.S. Census Bureau site (the agency that tracks trade data), and learned the basics about our trade deficit. He would then have known that we only spend about $250-300 billion on foreign oil, and that Canada is our biggest foreign supplier.

But I've digressed. So what is McCain's plan for dealing with job losses? Retraining. I wanted to scream loud enough for him to hear all the way in Minneapolis, "retrain to do what? Where are these mythical jobs that are going unfilled because we're all too uneducated to perform them?" He never answers that. It seems that the plan is to successively move our excess labor supply from the segment of the economy where it's the worst to other segments, one after the other, destroying the wage structure in each as we go. By creating the illusion of progress in one area, maybe we won't notice the deterioration in another. That seems to be the plan. Also, by proposing that the federal government make up a person's shortfall in wages in their new job vs. the job they just lost, at least during the "retraining" process, he seemed to making a tacit admission that wages will, in general, continue to decline under his plan.

But no, there will be new jobs, he says, in the mythical new "green economy," not to be confused with the "new economy" of the '90s, based on the internet, that was going to be our job salvation. This one will be based on building new, renewable energy sources. Somehow politicians have been sold the idea that the equipment used to generate renewable energy can only be made domestically. Wasn't that the same promise of "high tech?" Weren't we promised that computers and cell phones would be made in America, while the rest of the world would make the simple, boring things like cars and appliances? And, even if true, wouldn't the gain in jobs in making renewable energy sources be offset by a loss of jobs in the old energy technology? How does this gain us anything?

At this point, McCain took a swipe at Obama's plan. "While I'm creating these new jobs, my opponent's plan is to bring back those old jobs." "Those old jobs." He rolled out the words with a Bush-esque smirk on his face. Anyone who works in manufacturing should have been insulted by this statement. This demonstrates how little regard he has for the people who have surrendered their jobs to the Global Trade Welfare State (globalization) that was established by our goofball trade policies.

Finally, I was horrified at his proposal to double the tax deduction for children. If you want to lower taxes, why not reduce the base rate so that everyone can benefit? It's clear that pro-population growth economists, interested in stimulating another baby boom, had a hand in crafting this proposal.

I like John McCain.  He's a true American hero.  There's no doubt about the depth of his love for his country.  There's no doubt that he believes fervently in his plan.  But, unfortunately, his plan represents more of the same - more population growth, bigger trade deficits and more deficit spending to offset the negative effects. This isn't change. It's an intensification of the policies that have ravaged our economy for decades. It's the old "if it isn't working, do it harder" approach.  McCain's plan is a recipe for disaster.

Australia turns geothermal to meet renewable targets
Fair Home by David Masters
September 5, 2008

Superhot granite rock that lies just 3 miles below the surface of southern Australia could help the country meet its renewable energy targets.

Geothermal electricity produced using the heat of the rocks could provide Australia with up to 5% of its energy needs by 2020, according to the country’s Geothermal Energy Association.

According to the group, power produced using the heat from underground rocks could generate 2,200 megawatts of continuous energy by 2020, 40% of the country’s renewable energy target for that year...................................Google, the world’s most popular search engine, is so impressed by the potential of geothermal energy that it has invested $10 million into Geothermal energy research.

Fair Home » Australia turns geothermal to meet renewable targets

Tags: renewables, renewableenergy, climate change, global warming

It’s important to understand exactly how media relations works. By understanding the process, you make it a cumulative, ongoing process. Media begets media. You can turn an initial opportunity into ongoing media coverage. Be creative. Make a list of the various ways you can utilize your media, from ads and newsletters to placing framed copies of articles in you window or office. Don't waste opportunities due to short sightedness. Be imaginative, inventive. Think outside of the box.

For further information visit:
www.AnthonyMora.com

The following is an article from the League of Conservation Voters, (the title is a direct link to their site and this article.)  I had written a list of reasons that explains why my family is voting for Obama/Biden this year even though my hubby & I are registered Republican voters but while I was sourcing my facts I realized that the top 10 list from LCV explained it perfectly.   

LCV Presents: Top Ten Reasons to Vote for Obama/Biden 

DENVER - The League of Conservation Voters has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States because of his record-setting plans for a clean energy future and his proven record as an environmental champion.  As the party conventions highlight the differences between Senators Obama and McCain, LCV presents the Top Ten Energy and Environmental reasons why every American should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden on November 4:

10. Look to the future:  Senator Obama offers the most comprehensive energy plan of any Presidential nominee in history, it will end our dependence on foreign oil and create as many as 5,000,000 jobs.  Senator McCain’s plan continues the Bush Administration’s policy of appeasement to Big Oil, does nothing to reduce our dependence on oil, and isn’t as good as Paris Hilton’s.

9. You pollute, you pay:Obama and Biden support plan to make polluters pay for pollution credits and to clean up toxic waste.  McCain wants us to foot the bill for clean-up and to give polluters billions in tax breaks and subsidies.

8. Keeping us healthy:Obama and Biden have fought to keep our air and water clean. McCain has voted against clean water ten times and voted six times to make it harder for states and the EPA to keep our air clean.

7. Listening to the scientists: The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that America must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 in order to avoid the worst effects of global warming.  Obama’s plan will reach that goal. McCain’s plan falls far short.

6. The record speaks for itself:Senator Barack Obama earned a lifetime environmental voting score of 86%.  Senator Biden earned an 83%.  Senator John McCain earned a 24% score.

5. Decisions are made by those who show up:In the last two years, John McCain missed EVERY SINGLE major vote on energy.  One vital 2007 bill, to move billions of dollars in tax credits from the oil industry to wind, solar and other clean energy sources, failed by one vote: John McCain’s.  Obama and Biden, also running for President, voted for it.

4. Saving money at the pump:Obama proposes to double the fuel efficiency of our cars in 18 years, reducing our oil consumption by at least 35% or 10 millions barrels per day.  McCain voted against increasing fuel efficiency in 2003 and 2005.  He missed the 2007 vote. Presumably, he ran out of gas.

3. We’re not alone:  For more than 20 years, Joe Biden has been at the forefront of the fight against global warming.  In 1986, he offered the first Senate bill to fight global warming pollution. Since then, he has been the Senate’s strongest voice for making America the international leader in reducing global warming pollution and exporting clean technology.

2. Higher standards:To create millions of new jobs, we must boost production of renewable electricity.  Obama plans create 25% of our electricity from clean energy by 2025.   McCain opposes any national renewable energy standard.

1. Judge him by his friends:  Senator McCain accepted more than $2 million from the oil and gas industry, more than half of that since he changed his position on offshore drilling last month.    His forthcoming plan to open America’s playgrounds and sandboxes to drilling is expected to net another $1.2 million.

Source: League of Conservation Voters; www.lcv.org ; by Joshua McNeil

Now you have the REAL facts. What you choose to do with them is up to you.  Your voice counts... so does your vote. BE HEARD!

The big coal interests have a favored saying: “There is no silver bullet.” This old adage suggests there is no single solution to the growing energy needs and concerns of this country. While this is obviously true, the only solution (or “silver bullet”) that these charlatans ever talk about is “clean” coal. Ironically enough, “clean” coal is a fantasy notion as mythical as the werewolves and other monsters silver bullets were reputed to destroy.

For those unfamiliar with monster lore and mythology, silver bullets were capable of destroying everything from werewolves to vampires – creatures that had no other weakness or vulnerability. This metaphor is quite fitting to our dilemma of increasing energy demand while preserving the ecosystem, for it is a dilemma that seems insurmountable and unsolvable. Our civilization is built upon electricity and the idea of continuing our lifestyles without it is unfathomable to many Americans. But, as with the legendary monsters of old, a silver bullet does exist to address and conquer this problem – at least metaphorically.

It is not wind power, or solar power, or even energy efficiency, nor is it some yet-to-be-discovered technology that we hang unreasonable hopes upon. It is a mindset. A way of viewing the world free from the burdensome fear and closed-mindedness of the energy industry’s status quo. The simple knowledge, which has been known for decades, that we don’t need fossil fuels to generate our power. That the wasteful practices of our society can be ceased and a new era of responsible consumerism (in all regards, not just with energy) can be envisioned and achieved.

This means the practical solution of incorporating energy efficiency measures, developing and implementing new wind, solar, hydro, wave, geothermal and other renewable energy technologies, adding energy storage and changing the ways in which we live – not for the worse (as some would try and scare us into believing) but for the better. The accusation from coal barons that energy revolutionaries only want to try one solution (a silver bullet) is so misleading as to be insulting. “Green” suggestions are a “silver-shot” approach that address the problem from many angles: increasing energy diversity, promoting energy independence, and producing energy in a clean, sustainable, and economically sound fashion.

The world requires the abandonment of smoke-stack energy generation. Not immediately of course, but gradually over the next few decades.

Not only are coal prices increasing, but the long-hidden costs of coal are finally being recognized. From the mines to the smokestacks, coal is a filthy and expensive method of energy generation. Even the cost of building materials for the plants themselves is rising sharply.

For over a hundred years now, coal has been the primary method with which we generate power. And for all that time, the true cost - the cost to our ecosystem and to public health - has gone ignored. Now, finally, the coal profiteers are being forced to address some of these hidden costs (such as global warming gasses, mercury contamination, ecosystem destruction, and adverse health effects) and it is proving that coal is no more economical than other methods of power generation.

Carbon legislation is on the horizon and protests world-wide are bringing attention to coal-fired generation and its contribution to global warming. The energy revolution must happen, and on an even greater scale than it is now, if we are to successfully continue our civilization. The naysayers and critics of renewable power refuse to acknowledge the reality of this situation and should either change their tune or stop singing. We must progress and change, and we need to start yesterday.

Ernst Young's Renewable Energy Attractiveness Indices published on the 19th August said:

• China displaced the UK in the top five most attractive countries for investment in renewable energy for the first time in the indices’ five-year history.

Jonathan Johns, head of renewable energy at Ernst & Young, said of China:

• “Investment in China has been boosted by the government’s energy policy, which secures renewable energy as a vital and important part of the country’s energy mix. China’s stellar growth in renewables can also be attributed to the speed at which it has built up its supply chain capability, to the point where it is likely to have nine gigawatts of manufacturing capacity in a few years,”

While in the UK the delay of the Energy Bill has caused delay that has caused the UK's ranking to fall. There could be a further 2 years of inactivity while further consultation takes place, this will leave the UK just 10 years to develop the infra-structure to meet it's renewables targets in 2020.

Jonathon Johns said of the UK

• “To make the UK a world leader in attracting investment in this sector, and to avoid it slipping further down the index, the government needs to consider creating tangible incentives for investors, following the lead of Germany and the ambition of China.”

The UK now lies in 6th position after the US, Germany, India, China and Spain.

Today the Guardian reported that a demonstration of Carbon Capture and Storage will start at a coal fire power station in Germany next week. This 1.6MW plant will capture 100,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, will compress and bury it 3,000m below the surface in a depleted gas field, about 200km from the site. Although a full scale system remains years away this is a major step forward.

Meanwhile the Labour government remains committed to new coal fired power stations with no solid plans for any carbon capture and storage.

The policy framework, economic incentives, and business environment for green technologies are no longer novel they are becoming a reality across the developed world, global investment will increasingly follow these technologies. We have excellent renewable resources in the UK however we are slipping behind because of the government's lack of clear direction and decisive action.

Our government is failing to provide the leadership we need to move forward, this is not just about responding to the climate realities of the future it is about responding to the economic realties of the future.

www.workofchange.co.uk

In her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin made clear that she views Alaska’s untapped reservoirs of natural gas and oil as a key component toward moving the USA toward greater energy independence.  She strongly supports opening access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil.   

Just days before Palin’s catapult onto the national stage, she sat for an interview on CNBC’s Wall Street Journal Report with Maria Bartiromo where she argued her case for opening ANWR.  Palin compared the size of ANWR to less than the acreage of the Los Angeles Airport, a mere “postage stamp” compared to the entire size of the northern coastal plain of Alaska.  Palin asserted that “more and more Americans are recognizing it's time to ramp up America’s supply of energy” and it is naïve to not tap into Alaska’s “vast energy fields.”  Palin does recognize Alaska has potential to develop renewable energy sources, such as wind and tidal energy resources, but most of her energy argument focused on taking full advantage of Alaska’s oil reserves.    

During her tenure as Alaska’s Governor (Palin has held office for less than two years), she has made headway to advance her energy initiatives.  For example, on August 27 (again days before her VP nomination) Palin made news for signing a bill that awarded an Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) license to TranCanada Alaska to begin developing a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to its Alberta Hub in Canada.  In the press release Governor Palin praises the legislation because it “brings us [Alaska] closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.”

To her credit, she is not exclusively focused on oil and gas.  She has supported other forms of energy development too.  Cooler Planet previously reported on a bill Governor Palin signed in May 2008 that authorized $250 million to be invested primarily into wind power projects over the next five years.   

A statewide renewable energy policy has yet to emerge.  Yes there are private initiatives and local jurisdictions that are investing in solar and other types of renewable energy projects, but unlike other states that made Home Power magazine’s Top Ten list, the State of Alaska has yet to establish a comprehensive initiative.

Unlike John McCain, Sarah Palin dismisses the idea humans contribute to climate change and global warming though not at the expense of taking no-action.  In an interview for the September issue of the conservative magazine Newsmax, reporter Mike Coppock asked Palin to explain her views on global warming and how it is affecting our country.  Palin replied, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state because of our location.  I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”

Her acknowledgement of climate change prompted Palin to create a Climate Change Subcabinet.  The Subcabinet, established last year (September 14, 2007 to be exact) is still in process drafting its blueprint.

Palin has been Alaska’s Governor for less than two years.  (Prior to that, she was mayor of Wasilla, AK – from 1996 to 2002 – and then chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission from 2003 to 2004, a quasi-judicial agency responsible for overseeing oil and gas drilling within the state.)  Palin’s rhetoric, as governor, suggests that she likes projects that “get results.”  Twenty months is insufficient time to measure her track record but Palin’s actions suggest a continuation of current energy policy not one that is focused on a renewable energy agenda.

• 8:04 PDT: Speech over. Lunch down. I'd say time for dinner, but I've lost my appetite. Ah, well. Guess I'll go ahead and quote the President whose name McCain never mentioned: "Bring it on." Let's get this done, folks.
• 8:02 PDT: McCain: "Nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself." Unless you're a community organizer. Then you're just a joke.
• 8:00 PDT: McCain: "I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's." By GOP-insulting-Michelle-Obama logic, does that mean he DIDN'T love his country before? I'm so confused!
• 7:55 PDT: Hold on. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Was McCain a POW or something?
• 7:51 PDT: Paging George Orwell: We need more war before we can get enduring peace. McCain-Palin '84.
• 7:50 PDT: Dude, did you know there were dangerous threats in this dangerous world? Should I be scared? Maybe I'd better vote for John McCain.
• 7:49 PDT: What??? Russia invaded a small country to gain control over the world's oil supply??? HOW COULD THEY DO SUCH A THING???? Wait a minute...
• 7:47 PDT: "Ambitious"? Remember when Barack Obama said we could become energy independent in 10 years? That was ambitious. This is patronizing. There's a difference.
• 7:45 PDT: Still not clear how we're going to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil by missing the vote on solar energy eight times. Oh right, offshore drilling. Everyone get ready for 1% more oil in 6-20 years.
• 7:39 PDT: Oh good, I was wondering when we were going to get unfounded fearmongering about socialized medicine. Phew! Glad we got that out of the way.
• 7:38 PDT: Yes, a "culture of life" - except for veterans who want quality health care. Sucks to be them.
• 7:36 PDT: If you can tell me which "corporate welfare bill" for "big oil" Obama supported that McCain fought against, I will give you any prize you choose.
• 7:32 PDT: D'ya think it ever occurred to McCain to "honor our troops" by, I don't know, showing up to vote on the new GI bill?
• 7:31 PDT: McCain's fought "union bosses"? You mean, the people trying to increase wages for all American workers? Seriously?
• 7:30 PDT: Do you think the pork McCain's derailing includes the "bridge to nowhere" that Palin used to support?
• 7:26 PDT: Worth noting that Palin has "taken on corruption" by abusing her office and "taken on special interest" by hiring lobby firms to get earmarks. So admirable!
• 7:24 PDT: NICE WORK, Iraq protester! Hey, Senator McCain, all of us who want to bring our troops home are neither "ground noise" nor "static." We are patriots. Got that?
• 7:21 PDT: Breaking news: McCain is a uniter, not a divider. Where have I heard that before?
• 7:20 PDT: Is it just me, or does McCain's mom remind you of the Seinfeld where every time Jerry thought he had met the oldest Mandelbaum there was yet another, older generation? It's go time!
• 7:17 PDT: Gratitude to the President? Bold move. And veiled references to 9/11 #1 and 2. Nice.
• 7:15 PDT: I want to make out with whatever idiot from advance put this guy in front of a green screen again. Stephen Colbert is so excited right now.
• 7:12 PDT: POW mention #3. And 4. And 5. What is this poem?? It's going to be a long night. Oh, there's mention #6. And 7. Oy vey.
• 7:11 PDT: The family profile tastefully leaves out how McCain and Cindy had an affair when he was still married to his first wife, then got hitched a month after the divorce. Good call.
• 7:07 PDT: Torture mention #2. Also I love when people call being in Congress "public service" instead of "extended masturbatory ego trip."
• 7:06 PDT: Torture mention #1. Hey, good thing we're not using George W. Bush's version of torture, or what McCain went through would just be "enhanced interrogation."
• 7:05 PDT: POW mention #2. Anyone who picked "POW" for the McCain speech drinking game is screwed.
• 7:04 PDT: POW mention #1. Also, all the names John McCain's been called? How about when he called Cindy a cunt or laughed at Hillary being called a bitch?
• 7:01 PDT: Go Giants! Lucky for McCain that the game ended in a timely fashion. I think it's a safe bet that my mood will only get worse from here. Early press says McCain will emphasize his "maverick" status. Sounds more like the theme will be "hypocrisy" to me...

Yep, I bleed for renewable energy for the Philippines. That way we don't have to be dependent on foreign fossil fuel to power our cities and lives. Not to mention that we are helping cool off our environment by using clean energy for our everyday activities.

Around the world, massive numbers of tall power pylons wind their way through the landscape, carrying the cables that deliver the power from power stations to cities and towns.

The problem with erecting tall structures such as power pylons is that there is often opposition against them, usually based on the "visual pollution" they cause.

However once they are approved and erected, they are there and their usage might as well be maximized.

Power pylons are often built across wide open landscapes such as plains, or in mountainous areas, and in these locations there is often plenty of wind.

So what I would like to suggest is that in future, in locations where there is sufficient wind, power pylons be fitted with a medium-sized windmill at the top. This may require some reinforcement of the pylon, but if the size of the windmill is kept within the design limits of the pylon, additional costs should be limited.

Alternatively, a new pylon design could be developed that would enable the fitting of a larger windmill at the top, for use in locations where the wind quality warrants the deployment of the new type of pylon which would obviously somewhat more expensive than the standard type, the principle of which has been in use since the early days of electricity.

A handy thing about fitting windmills to power pylons is that the power could be fed straight into the grid on the pylon.

If you like this idea and you work in a type of industry where this is relevant, I would be happy to discuss in more detail, answer questions or assist in other ways. For details and contact information please see the "About itimes3" page.

George Spark

Disclaimer: Any trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.
All usage of this site is entirely at users risk.

This is merely an idea, although there are so many initiatives under way globally in the field of solar energy that this will hopefully be a reality sooner rather than later.

Imagine a roll of bitumen roofing, the type of thick "black paper" that is rolled out onto flat roofs and "glued" to the roof my partially melting the material using a burner of some sort.

Now imagine a similar type and size of roll, but the material is metallic. The roll gets deployed in much the same fashion, and will probably be glued to the roof, possibly using a "sticky" reverse side, which can be exposed by removing a protective cover, and the glue of which would be waterproof and withstand prolonged outdoor use.

The material is Solar Foil, a type of material that acts like one big solar cell (in fact, it will probably be using masses of small solar cells on its surface, or even nano-technology based material).

Below the surface of the material there will be a mesh of conductive channels, where the power that is generated accumulates.

To "tap" the power generated by the solar foil, a simple connector is connected to any part of the mesh of conductive channels (at the side of a sheet of the foil), and attached to a device that can store and/or standardize the power.

This structure makes it possible to cut the Solar Foil into any required size (ideally it should be possible to cut it with strong normal scissors), and as long as the mesh of different sheets of Solar Foil is connected at least at one location, the entire surface covered with connected sheets of Solar Foil will act as one large single solar cell.

It will be possible to use this material on roofs and sides of buildings, on roofs of vehicles, and on most other surfaces outside, flat or curved, as long as the material can be stuck onto it.

If the material is sufficiently sensitive, it could also be used indoors - for example I could have a sheet of it somewhere on my desk (for example hanging off the back of my computer monitor, facing artificial or natural light) and it could be used to recharge my cell phone. Similar uses could be thought of in the home, where it could be used to recharge sets of rechargable batteries, for example.

If you like this idea and you work in a type of industry where this is relevant, I would be happy to discuss in more detail, answer questions or assist in other ways. For details and contact information please see the "About itimes3" page.

George Spark

Disclaimer: Any trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.
All usage of this site is entirely at users risk.

That's the law of large numbers really working. Agri-business consortiums work so I would imagine that the potential for a successful solar-business consortium might work too.  It just represents an organizing challenge, but that's ok, it can be done.  (Just ask me how, or Victory Promotions, or Barak Obama.  But if you seriously want to figure out how this could work, get in touch, It could be big.  Serious inquiries only.)

I always thought that cul-de-sacs would be great places to put up solar panel installations where the whole circle could, together, generate their own power...  Or just neighbourhood blocks getting together to put up one system for 4 houses to share the costs of start-up... You know, it doesn't have to be expensive... Germany make solar power absolutely accessible to everyone...

• 8:11 PDT: Speech over. Did anyone out there hear any specific policy initiatives? Because I sure didn't. Kudos to Palin for speaking articulately and well. I can imagine her being a really effective puppet, not unlike our current president. The great irony, of course, is that this speech was exactly the empty rhetoric which the right consistently accuses Obama of using. There was no there there, to put it mildly. I didn't eat dinner before the speech to avoid accidental bulimia, so I'm going to go get on that. More later.
• 8:06 PDT: Dude, saying that Harry Reid can't stand up to John McCain isn't exactly setting the bar that high, y'know what I'm saying?
• 8:03 PDT: Conveniently, when Palin's trumping up all of Obama's big bad tax increases, she never bothers to mention who would have to pay them. It's all smoke and mirrors and hypotheticals. Shocking.
• 7:56 PDT: Palin's proposed solution to our dependence on foreign oil is to produce more of our own oil and gas. Phew. Glad we took care of that problem. Oh no wait, we are going to move forward on solar, wind, and geothermal. Good thing McCain missed the vote to fund solar energy development eight times.
• 7:47 PDT: Palin says community organizers have no responsibilities. Is. She. Freaking. Kidding. Then proceeds to say Obama doesn't really care about workers. I don't think "out of touch" begins to cover this one.
• 7:46 PDT: Cameras pan to Piper licking her hand and plastering Trig's hair to his head. God bless C-SPAN.
• 7:38 PDT: Palin: "McCain has never broken faith with our troops." Really? Not even the time he missed the vote on the new GI bill four months ago?
• 7:23 PDT: Giuliani says "If we lost the war, who won? Osama bin Laden? Al-qaeda?" Statement is so absurd it takes the delegates a couple awkward seconds before they realize they're supposed to cheer.
• 7:13 PDT: Giuliani says Obama is "the least experienced candidate for president in at least the last 100 years." I like that he can't go back further than that on account of Obama's experience being the same as Lincoln's.
• 7:10 PDT: Giuliani thinks it's hilarious that Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. I hate that guy. If he had cared half as much about New York's poor people as Obama did about Chicago's, he might have been a mayor that was worth a damn.
• 7:03 PDT: Cameras flash to Bristol holding her baby brother, Trig. Way to visually remind us that she's pregnant, McCain camp. Feel free to blame the liberal blogosphere for harping on the story at your leisure.
• 7:00 PDT: Lingle: McCain's choice of Palin proves that "he will always do the right thing for the people of America." I'm not sure I can add any commentary to make that funnier.
• 6:56 PDT: Lingle: "Neither Obama nor Biden has ever been the chief executive of any city of any size, or any state, or anything for that matter." Did I miss something? Has McCain been chief of something? Oh well, guess Palin's the more qualified one on the ticket, obvi.
• 6:53 PDT: Lingle is harping and harping on Palin's record of defeating incumbents. Is it just me, or is that frame decidedly anti-Bush? That's a tough sell coming from the, erm, Republican National Convention.
• 6:47 PDT: The delegates cheer when HI Gov Lingle mentions that Palin was in 2nd place in Miss Alaska beauty pageant. Arguably much more loudly than they cheered when Lingle said that Palin knows energy issues very well.

BioFuel Oasis needs your help!  They are in the process of moving to Ashby & Sacramento in Berkeley and need some materials for their new location.  Please drop them a line if you can help out.

From their site:

We are currently looking for:

• Farm tables
• A counter and cabinetry
• A PC Laptop
• Wood - 2x4s, 4x4s, 6x2s and shelves.
• Wine barrels
• Plywood-to cover open trenches during construction. We will return to you after construction is complete.

Please let us know if you have design or construction oriented skills you can offer at a discounted rate.

Your donated building materials and time will help build your new station; the Most Sustainable Station in the Nation! Thank you!

We can be reached by email at: biodevas@biofueloasis.com