Source: http://woodworking.about.com/od/woodworkingplansdesigns/ss/wineRack.htm
yahoo fantasy football nate kaeding lesnar vs velasquez fight video
Montag, 28. Februar 2011
Modular Wine Rack
In these free woodworking plans, we show how to build a very attractive modular wine rack. The best part of this woodworking project is that the units are expandable. The more wine you have, the more racks you can add!
The Cost and How to Install a Solar Hot water Heater System
How much to install solar water heater? Want to solar heat your water but don’t want to spend thousands of dollars to do it? Want to use solar energy for electricity but not sure how to do it? Well hopefully this can offer you some help on installation of a solar hot water heating system� [...]
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ResidentialSolarPanels/~3/rp0vatfty00/install-solar-panels-home
Helen Keller Madonna Bob Hope Michael Jordan Spider Man Frank Lloyd Wright John Travolta Meryl Streep Paul Newman Robin Williams
Pinewood Derby Car - Autito de Pino
Simple Pinewood Derby Car mado of… well… pine! The tires are Para�so wood (Melia Azedarach), and the axes are aluminium rivets. Isnt kit, but the measures are the regulatory.
Good races! Greetings.
Mart�n
Sencillo Auto de Pino hecho de… bueno… pino! Las ruedas son de Para�so (Melia Azedarach), y los ejes son remaches de aluminio. No es de kit, pero las medidas son la reglamentarias.
Buenas carreras! Saludos.
Mart�n
Source: http://lumberjocks.com/projects/45292
katy perry wedding pictures lesnar vs carwin video one piece episode 472
DJH Construction, Inc. Completes a 2.99 kW Residential Photovoltaic System in Fort Mojave, Arizona.
Wall shelf
this display shelf I built for my daughter. it came from a plan in Wood Magazine….. made from pine and painted in her favorite colors
Laminated legs
I recently glued up 5 3/4" 4"x48" pieces of white pine to plane down to 3-1/4" square legs (they will be painted). I've edge glued 3/4 stock...
Source: http://www.woodworkingtalk.com/f2/laminated-legs-23967/
Sliding Dovetail Joints
When considering the design of a woodworking project, there are numerous types of joinery to consider. One of the most versatile woodworking joints is the sliding dovetail joint. It is strong, has numerous practical uses, and can be made with a variety of woodworking tools. Learn the uses and methods for building the beautifully simple sliding dovetail joint.
Source: http://woodworking.about.com/od/joinery/p/SlidingDovetail.htm
Clean Coal or Dirty Coal?
When President Bush said ?America is addicted to oil?, he could also have said that America is addicted to coal.
Most Americans are not aware of the sheer scale of current coal use in the United States. Over 50% of electricity is generated from coal with 20 pounds of coal per a person being burnt every day to generate electricity.
While questions are increasingly being raised about remaining oil and gas reserves, we are assured that there is plenty of coal left to burn. Indeed in a talk to a meeting of builders and contractors at the Capital Hilton on June 8, 2005 President Bush asked the audience,
"Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?"
Hopefully readers will spot this obvious gaffe. The figure quoted by the coal industry is 250 years of reserves, not 250 million years. The energy illiteracy of the average person is worrying enough, but in our political leadership it is a real cause for concern.
There are an estimated one trillion tons of recoverable coal in the world, by far the largest reserve of fossil fuel left on the planet. The United States has over 25% of the world?s recoverable coal reserves. An important point to remember when considering how many years of coal we have left is that these figures are based on current rates of consumption and do no take into account growing demand for electricity. Since 1980 coal use for power generation has increased by over 75%.
A good percentage of the coal that?s left is too dirty to be burned in conventional power plants and much of its buried in inconvenient places. In 1974 the USGS published an estimate of the recoverable reserve base at 243 billion tons. This however failed to take into account real world restrictions on mining: state and national parks, roads, towns, proximity to railroads, coal quality, losses during mining and geologic limitations. When these are factored in less than 50% of the coal estimated as ?recoverable? in the 1974 study was available for mining. This fails to taken into account how much is economically recoverable at market prices. In a 1989 study by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Kentucky, at $30 a ton 22% of coal was economically recoverable. The author Tim Rohrbacher wrote ?a strong argument can be made that traditional coal producing regions may soon be experiencing resource depletion problems far greater and much sooner than previously thought?.
Recently there has been a rise in suggestions that America should replace its addiction to oil, with diesel fuel made from American coal. There is currently in place a Coal-to-Liquids Tax Credit of $0.50/gallon in place until 2023. The idea has been around for a long while, in the second world war it was used by the Germans to make Nazi oil from coal when their supply of normal gasoline was cut off. I remember when I first started researching peak oil I realised after awhile if things got bad that coal rich countries might turn to making Nazi oil in desperation when petroleum depletion started to bite. Of course calls to start building Coal to Liquids plants aren?t proof that petroleum depletion is well advanced, but I hardly see it as a source for optimism.
Fischer-Tropsch pilot plant
You don?t need to be an expert on coal liquefaction to realise that it?s a bad idea as this article on AutoblogGreen shows. It?s expensive, uses lots of water, produces double the carbon dioxide when compared to regular petroleum use and produces diesel when the vast majority of the U.S. car fleet runs on gasoline. Over at the Ergosphere, the Engineer Poet crunches the numbers and compares coal to liquids versus electric vehicles. He calculates that to replace the United States petroleum consumption at current rates would take 214 four billion dollar coal to liquid plants (that?s not far off a trillion dollars in investment) and the mining of an additional one and a half billion tons of coal a year, in addition to the one billion tons already being mined for electricity generation. It should be noted that the high percentage of electricity currently produced from coal is not an argument against electric vehicles, this is something I have covered in detail elsewhere on this blog. Electric motors are inherently more efficient than the internal combustion engine. It is far easier to control emissions from large power plant, than from the exhausts of thousands of cars. Electric vehicles are not reliant on one source of energy and in the longer term polluting non-renewable sources of electricity can be replaced by clean alternative energy.
The coal industry?s promotion of the idea that America has a vast reserve of coal is slowing the transition to clean renewable sources of energy. In addition to tv spots showing child actors extolling the virtues of coal, the industry has spent heavily to get the ear of the political establishment. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Peabody Energy, the world?s largest coal company spent over 5% of its revenues on political contributions, for comparison Exxon Mobil and General Motors spent a fraction of one percent.
In seeming return for such generosity, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included five billion dollars of subsidies for the coal industry.
Virtually every power plant built in America between 1975 and 2002 was fired by natural gas. However between 1970 and 2000, the amount of coal America used to generate electricity tripled.
Now with natural gas prices rising steeply, U.S. power utilities are expected to build the equivalent of 280 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity power plants between 2003 and 2030. China is already constructing the equivalent of one large coal burning power plant a week with two thirds of energy production coming from dirty coal. 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China. India is the third largest producer of coal in the world, also getting over two thirds of its energy from coal. If these new coal plants are built, they will add as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as has been released by all the coal burned in the last 250 years.
Acid run off from coal mining
Coal?s sale price may be low, but the true costs of its extraction, processing and consumption are high. Our use of coal leads to ravaged mountains, air pollution from acidic and toxic emissions and fouled water supplies. Coal mining is massively more invasive than oil or gas drilling. Coal burning power plants account for more than two-thirds of sulfur dioxide, 22% of nitrogen oxides, nearly 40% of carbon dioxide and a third of all mercury emissions in the United States. Results of the largest mercury hair sampling project in the U.S. found mercury levels exceeding the EPA?s recommended limit of one microgram of mercury per gram of hair in one in five women of childbearing age tested. Each year coal plants produce about 130 million tons of solid waste, about three times more than all the municipal garbage in the U.S. The American Lung Association calculates that around 24,000 people a year die prematurely from the effects of coal fired power plant pollution.
Techniques for addressing CO2 emissions exist, although the will to quickly implement them lags.
The techniques electric utilities could apply to keep much of the carbon dioxide they produce from entering the atmosphere are known as CO2 capture or geological carbon sequestration. This involves separating the CO2 as it is created and pumping it underground to be stored.
Until recently I wasn?t aware that all the technological components needed for carbon sequestration are commercially ready (according to an article in September?s Scientific American magazine) as they have already been proven in applications unrelated to avoidance of climate change. However integrated systems have yet to be built on a commercial scale.
Capture technologies have been deployed extensively throughout the world both in the manufacture of chemicals (e.g. fertilizer) and in the purification of natural gas. Industry has gained experience with CO2 storage in operations to purify natural gas, principally in Canada, as well as using carbon dioxide to boost oil production, mainly in the United States.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated in 2005 that it is highly likely that geologic locations worldwide are capable of sequestering at least two trillion metric tons of CO2 - more than is likely to be produced by fossil fuel consuming power plants this century.
Carbon sequestration is not without risk. The two main risks are sudden escape and gradual leakage of carbon dioxide. In 1986 at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, Africa carbon dioxide originating from a volcano killed over 1,700 people. However according to IPCC this is unlikely for engineered CO2 storage in carefully selected, deep porous geologic rock formations. In regard to gradual leakage the IPCC estimated in 2005 that in excess of 99% of carbon sequestered is ?very likely? to remain in place for at least one hundred years.
Studies indicate that 85%-95% of the carbon in coal could be sequestered using existing power generation technologies.
A key point is that fundamentally different approaches to carbon capture would need to be pursued for power plants using the old pulverised coal technology as opposed to the newer integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). IGCC plants use heat and pressure to cook off impurities in coal and convert it into a synthetic gas, this gas is then burnt in a turbine. These plants are 10% more efficient than conventional plants, consume 40% less water, produce 50% less solid waste and burn almost as cleanly as natural gas plants.
Although building IGCC power plants is slightly more expensive (10%-20%), IGCC is likely to be the most effective and cheapest option for carbon capture.
In an IGCC plant designed to capture CO2 the syngas exiting the gasifier, after being cooled and cleaned of particles, would be reacted with steam to make a gas made up mainly of CO2 and hydrogen. The CO2 would then be extracted and pumped to a storage site. The remaining hydrogen would be burned to generate more power. Captured carbon dioxide can by piped up to several hundred miles to a suitable geologic storage site.
A recent study found that for carbon capture in a saline formation one hundred kilometers from a power plant would cost an additional 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (over the generation cost of 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for a coal IGCC plant that vents carbon dioxide), making a 40% premium. With coal generation costing 6.6 cents for a kilowatt hour, this would make wind power cheaper than coal and with technology advances could also provide a boost to other renewable energy sources (e.g. concentrating solar power).
However electricity producers are rushing to build conventional coal pulverisation power plants, just as they rushed to build coal plants without sulfur scrubbers prior to legislation coming into force. This is short-sighted as it is more expensive, more energy intensive and less effective to attempt to capture carbon from conventional coal power plants. It is highly likely that having built these plants, that the coal industry would expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for the additional expense. Of the one hundred or so plants being planned or under construction in America only a handful use IGCC technology.
Proposed Design for FutureGen
FutureGen, is the Department of Energy financed one billion dollar zero emissions plant intended to turn coal into electricity and hydrogen. Proposed in 2003 and backed by a consortium of coal and electric companies, it is not due to come online until at least 2013. Many in the industry consider this date to be dubious nicknaming the project NeverGen. It is intended to make it look like the coal industry is doing something, while actually doing very little and in the process putting off changing how coal plants are built for a decade or two. Indeed in its Coal Vision report(pdf), the industry does not plan on building ?ultra-low emissions? plants on a commerical scale until between 2025 and 2035. According to the report ?there is considerable debate about the need to reduce CO2 emissions?. The report also states that ?achieving meaningful CO2 reductions would require significant technical advances?.
The report further states ?large scale and long term demonstrations of carbon sequestration technologies over a geographically and geologically diverse range of... sites are needed before making any policy decisions concerning carbon management?. The coal industry wants sequestration to be demonstrated not only in the United States but additionally ?similar assessments need to be conducted internationally?. In terms of who should pay for these demonstrations the report writes ?the government must play a significant role?.
It sounds that if the coal industry has its way, it won?t be using carbon capture for many decades.
Instead of waiting until 2013 or even 2035, the coal industry could be building IGCC power plants with carbon capture now. The rush to build conventional coal pulverisation plants is extremely short sighted as these plants could be operating for the next fifty years or more.
In the first instance I advocate maximising our use of clean renewable energy. At the moment wind power is being used to generate only 0.5% of electricity in the United States. Using existing technology wind power could cost effecively generate a significant portion of many countries electricity supply. Significant sums of money should also be invested in making solar power and wave power more cost effective, as well as investments in energy long shots such as cellulosic ethanol and fusion power. If we are going to continue to use coal as global society as a major source of energy, which seems pretty much inevitable for at least the next few decades in key countries such as the United States, China & India, then we should be building IGCC power plants with carbon capture and retiring existing dirty coal plants now. If there are unforeseen problems with carbon capture, we need to find out now rather than in a few decades time. The coal industry's business as usual attitude is simply not acceptable.
Jeff Goodell in his recent book ?Big Coal? concludes, ?coal gives us a false sense of security, if we run out of gas and oil, we can just switch over to coal? the most dangerous things about our continued dependence on coal is it preserves the illusion that we don?t have to change our thinking?.
Further Reading:
?Big Coal? by Jeff Goodell
?What to Do About Coal?? in Scientific American September, 2006
Lively Discussion of Coal to Liquids
Coal Vision by the Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group
Mountaintop Removal
A Quick Guide to Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
When Will Coal Production Peak?
Most Americans are not aware of the sheer scale of current coal use in the United States. Over 50% of electricity is generated from coal with 20 pounds of coal per a person being burnt every day to generate electricity.
While questions are increasingly being raised about remaining oil and gas reserves, we are assured that there is plenty of coal left to burn. Indeed in a talk to a meeting of builders and contractors at the Capital Hilton on June 8, 2005 President Bush asked the audience,
"Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?"
Hopefully readers will spot this obvious gaffe. The figure quoted by the coal industry is 250 years of reserves, not 250 million years. The energy illiteracy of the average person is worrying enough, but in our political leadership it is a real cause for concern.
There are an estimated one trillion tons of recoverable coal in the world, by far the largest reserve of fossil fuel left on the planet. The United States has over 25% of the world?s recoverable coal reserves. An important point to remember when considering how many years of coal we have left is that these figures are based on current rates of consumption and do no take into account growing demand for electricity. Since 1980 coal use for power generation has increased by over 75%.
A good percentage of the coal that?s left is too dirty to be burned in conventional power plants and much of its buried in inconvenient places. In 1974 the USGS published an estimate of the recoverable reserve base at 243 billion tons. This however failed to take into account real world restrictions on mining: state and national parks, roads, towns, proximity to railroads, coal quality, losses during mining and geologic limitations. When these are factored in less than 50% of the coal estimated as ?recoverable? in the 1974 study was available for mining. This fails to taken into account how much is economically recoverable at market prices. In a 1989 study by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Kentucky, at $30 a ton 22% of coal was economically recoverable. The author Tim Rohrbacher wrote ?a strong argument can be made that traditional coal producing regions may soon be experiencing resource depletion problems far greater and much sooner than previously thought?.
Recently there has been a rise in suggestions that America should replace its addiction to oil, with diesel fuel made from American coal. There is currently in place a Coal-to-Liquids Tax Credit of $0.50/gallon in place until 2023. The idea has been around for a long while, in the second world war it was used by the Germans to make Nazi oil from coal when their supply of normal gasoline was cut off. I remember when I first started researching peak oil I realised after awhile if things got bad that coal rich countries might turn to making Nazi oil in desperation when petroleum depletion started to bite. Of course calls to start building Coal to Liquids plants aren?t proof that petroleum depletion is well advanced, but I hardly see it as a source for optimism.
Fischer-Tropsch pilot plant
You don?t need to be an expert on coal liquefaction to realise that it?s a bad idea as this article on AutoblogGreen shows. It?s expensive, uses lots of water, produces double the carbon dioxide when compared to regular petroleum use and produces diesel when the vast majority of the U.S. car fleet runs on gasoline. Over at the Ergosphere, the Engineer Poet crunches the numbers and compares coal to liquids versus electric vehicles. He calculates that to replace the United States petroleum consumption at current rates would take 214 four billion dollar coal to liquid plants (that?s not far off a trillion dollars in investment) and the mining of an additional one and a half billion tons of coal a year, in addition to the one billion tons already being mined for electricity generation. It should be noted that the high percentage of electricity currently produced from coal is not an argument against electric vehicles, this is something I have covered in detail elsewhere on this blog. Electric motors are inherently more efficient than the internal combustion engine. It is far easier to control emissions from large power plant, than from the exhausts of thousands of cars. Electric vehicles are not reliant on one source of energy and in the longer term polluting non-renewable sources of electricity can be replaced by clean alternative energy.
The coal industry?s promotion of the idea that America has a vast reserve of coal is slowing the transition to clean renewable sources of energy. In addition to tv spots showing child actors extolling the virtues of coal, the industry has spent heavily to get the ear of the political establishment. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Peabody Energy, the world?s largest coal company spent over 5% of its revenues on political contributions, for comparison Exxon Mobil and General Motors spent a fraction of one percent.
In seeming return for such generosity, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included five billion dollars of subsidies for the coal industry.
Virtually every power plant built in America between 1975 and 2002 was fired by natural gas. However between 1970 and 2000, the amount of coal America used to generate electricity tripled.
Now with natural gas prices rising steeply, U.S. power utilities are expected to build the equivalent of 280 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity power plants between 2003 and 2030. China is already constructing the equivalent of one large coal burning power plant a week with two thirds of energy production coming from dirty coal. 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China. India is the third largest producer of coal in the world, also getting over two thirds of its energy from coal. If these new coal plants are built, they will add as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as has been released by all the coal burned in the last 250 years.
Acid run off from coal mining
Coal?s sale price may be low, but the true costs of its extraction, processing and consumption are high. Our use of coal leads to ravaged mountains, air pollution from acidic and toxic emissions and fouled water supplies. Coal mining is massively more invasive than oil or gas drilling. Coal burning power plants account for more than two-thirds of sulfur dioxide, 22% of nitrogen oxides, nearly 40% of carbon dioxide and a third of all mercury emissions in the United States. Results of the largest mercury hair sampling project in the U.S. found mercury levels exceeding the EPA?s recommended limit of one microgram of mercury per gram of hair in one in five women of childbearing age tested. Each year coal plants produce about 130 million tons of solid waste, about three times more than all the municipal garbage in the U.S. The American Lung Association calculates that around 24,000 people a year die prematurely from the effects of coal fired power plant pollution.
Techniques for addressing CO2 emissions exist, although the will to quickly implement them lags.
The techniques electric utilities could apply to keep much of the carbon dioxide they produce from entering the atmosphere are known as CO2 capture or geological carbon sequestration. This involves separating the CO2 as it is created and pumping it underground to be stored.
Until recently I wasn?t aware that all the technological components needed for carbon sequestration are commercially ready (according to an article in September?s Scientific American magazine) as they have already been proven in applications unrelated to avoidance of climate change. However integrated systems have yet to be built on a commercial scale.
Capture technologies have been deployed extensively throughout the world both in the manufacture of chemicals (e.g. fertilizer) and in the purification of natural gas. Industry has gained experience with CO2 storage in operations to purify natural gas, principally in Canada, as well as using carbon dioxide to boost oil production, mainly in the United States.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated in 2005 that it is highly likely that geologic locations worldwide are capable of sequestering at least two trillion metric tons of CO2 - more than is likely to be produced by fossil fuel consuming power plants this century.
Carbon sequestration is not without risk. The two main risks are sudden escape and gradual leakage of carbon dioxide. In 1986 at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, Africa carbon dioxide originating from a volcano killed over 1,700 people. However according to IPCC this is unlikely for engineered CO2 storage in carefully selected, deep porous geologic rock formations. In regard to gradual leakage the IPCC estimated in 2005 that in excess of 99% of carbon sequestered is ?very likely? to remain in place for at least one hundred years.
Studies indicate that 85%-95% of the carbon in coal could be sequestered using existing power generation technologies.
A key point is that fundamentally different approaches to carbon capture would need to be pursued for power plants using the old pulverised coal technology as opposed to the newer integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). IGCC plants use heat and pressure to cook off impurities in coal and convert it into a synthetic gas, this gas is then burnt in a turbine. These plants are 10% more efficient than conventional plants, consume 40% less water, produce 50% less solid waste and burn almost as cleanly as natural gas plants.
Although building IGCC power plants is slightly more expensive (10%-20%), IGCC is likely to be the most effective and cheapest option for carbon capture.
In an IGCC plant designed to capture CO2 the syngas exiting the gasifier, after being cooled and cleaned of particles, would be reacted with steam to make a gas made up mainly of CO2 and hydrogen. The CO2 would then be extracted and pumped to a storage site. The remaining hydrogen would be burned to generate more power. Captured carbon dioxide can by piped up to several hundred miles to a suitable geologic storage site.
A recent study found that for carbon capture in a saline formation one hundred kilometers from a power plant would cost an additional 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (over the generation cost of 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for a coal IGCC plant that vents carbon dioxide), making a 40% premium. With coal generation costing 6.6 cents for a kilowatt hour, this would make wind power cheaper than coal and with technology advances could also provide a boost to other renewable energy sources (e.g. concentrating solar power).
However electricity producers are rushing to build conventional coal pulverisation power plants, just as they rushed to build coal plants without sulfur scrubbers prior to legislation coming into force. This is short-sighted as it is more expensive, more energy intensive and less effective to attempt to capture carbon from conventional coal power plants. It is highly likely that having built these plants, that the coal industry would expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for the additional expense. Of the one hundred or so plants being planned or under construction in America only a handful use IGCC technology.
Proposed Design for FutureGen
FutureGen, is the Department of Energy financed one billion dollar zero emissions plant intended to turn coal into electricity and hydrogen. Proposed in 2003 and backed by a consortium of coal and electric companies, it is not due to come online until at least 2013. Many in the industry consider this date to be dubious nicknaming the project NeverGen. It is intended to make it look like the coal industry is doing something, while actually doing very little and in the process putting off changing how coal plants are built for a decade or two. Indeed in its Coal Vision report(pdf), the industry does not plan on building ?ultra-low emissions? plants on a commerical scale until between 2025 and 2035. According to the report ?there is considerable debate about the need to reduce CO2 emissions?. The report also states that ?achieving meaningful CO2 reductions would require significant technical advances?.
The report further states ?large scale and long term demonstrations of carbon sequestration technologies over a geographically and geologically diverse range of... sites are needed before making any policy decisions concerning carbon management?. The coal industry wants sequestration to be demonstrated not only in the United States but additionally ?similar assessments need to be conducted internationally?. In terms of who should pay for these demonstrations the report writes ?the government must play a significant role?.
It sounds that if the coal industry has its way, it won?t be using carbon capture for many decades.
Instead of waiting until 2013 or even 2035, the coal industry could be building IGCC power plants with carbon capture now. The rush to build conventional coal pulverisation plants is extremely short sighted as these plants could be operating for the next fifty years or more.
In the first instance I advocate maximising our use of clean renewable energy. At the moment wind power is being used to generate only 0.5% of electricity in the United States. Using existing technology wind power could cost effecively generate a significant portion of many countries electricity supply. Significant sums of money should also be invested in making solar power and wave power more cost effective, as well as investments in energy long shots such as cellulosic ethanol and fusion power. If we are going to continue to use coal as global society as a major source of energy, which seems pretty much inevitable for at least the next few decades in key countries such as the United States, China & India, then we should be building IGCC power plants with carbon capture and retiring existing dirty coal plants now. If there are unforeseen problems with carbon capture, we need to find out now rather than in a few decades time. The coal industry's business as usual attitude is simply not acceptable.
Jeff Goodell in his recent book ?Big Coal? concludes, ?coal gives us a false sense of security, if we run out of gas and oil, we can just switch over to coal? the most dangerous things about our continued dependence on coal is it preserves the illusion that we don?t have to change our thinking?.
Further Reading:
?Big Coal? by Jeff Goodell
?What to Do About Coal?? in Scientific American September, 2006
Lively Discussion of Coal to Liquids
Coal Vision by the Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group
Mountaintop Removal
A Quick Guide to Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
When Will Coal Production Peak?
Source: http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2006/10/clean-coal-or-dirty-coal.html
Chuck Yeager David Letterman Elizabeth Dole Mae West Alicia Silverstone Norman Schwarzkopf Gloria Steinem John Candy Carrie Fisher Peyton Manning
Shop Improvements #2: Not the Studley Tool Cabinet, But Close Enough
After taking some good advice from several of you on LJ, I finally started moving tools into my tool cabinet.
I began my tapping off a section of my work bench the same size as my tool cabinet. Then I put all of my tools “in the box.” I even had my kids help arrange them. When all was said and done, I came out with this arrangement. I?ll have some more pictures of the doors, which have my chisels. (You can see three of the backsaws I’ve made recently, too.)
It?s not the Studley Tool Cabinet, but I?m pretty happy with it.
Thanks to everyone who gave good advice on getting it this far.
Charles Hendry sets out new approach to onshore wind
Westminster Hall debate
10 February 2011
Source: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/hendry_onshore/hendry_onshore.aspx
Nathaniel Hawthorne Bill Cosby Howard Stern Helen Keller Madonna Bob Hope Michael Jordan Spider Man Frank Lloyd Wright John Travolta
Solar Power Used to Clean Toxic Pesticide Neighborhood in Davis, CA
EPA uses solar power to remediate contaminated groundwater.
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/residential-solar/~3/V_zY1n33YTg/
Bill Hicks Chuck Yeager David Letterman Elizabeth Dole Mae West Alicia Silverstone Norman Schwarzkopf Gloria Steinem John Candy Carrie Fisher
Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011
Last day of summer
It's no use complainingn about the weather as others have had it far worse but, here we are on the last day of summer and it's pouring down again!
Cheers,
Jim
Cheers,
Jim
Source: http://www.woodworkforums.com/f28/last-day-summer-132044/
Sunning Seagulls at Solar One
Check out the seagulls sunning themselves just outside the Solar One doors. A sure sign that spring is not too far away!
Source: http://solar1.org/2011/02/24/sunning-seagulls-at-solar-one/
Tommy Lee Marilyn Vos Savant Yogi Berra Carl Sagan Danny Glover Ashley Simpson Vladimir Putin Justin Timberlake Phil Donahue Andy Griffith
Mixed Signals & Federal Funding for Alternative Energy Research
There have definitely been some mixed signals on alternative energy research recently. At the same time President Bush's State of the Union address called for a 22 percent increase in federal spending to develop alternative energies, dozens of staffers and contractors for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, were being laid off.
The disconnect was a political embarrassment for the president, so federal officials restored the laboratory's funding, rehiring the workers who had been laid off just in time for President Bush?s scheduled speech at the NREL.
In his speech the President acknowledged the confusion, ?I recognize that there has been some interesting mixed signals when it comes to funding," President Bush said.
This comes at a time when a new national public opinion survey demonstrates overwhelming public support in the United States for government policies and investments that will support development of alternative energy sources. The survey of 1,000 registered voters was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies of Alexandria, VA, for the Energy Future Coalition. The survey?s findings included:
According to the survery there is nearly unanimous support for a national goal of having 25% of the United States domestic energy needs met by alternative energy by the year 2025. Ninety-eight percent of voters see this goal as important for the country, and three out of four (74%) feel that it is "very important." Ninety percent of voters believe this goal is achievable.
Similar majorities support government action to encourage greater use of renewable energy. Eighty-eight percent of voters favor financial incentives, and 92% support minimum government standards for the use of renewable energy by the private sector.
Nearly all voters (98%) say the costs, such as the cost of research and development and the cost of building new renewable energy production facilities, would be worth it to get the United States to the 25% by 2025 goal.
Voters consider energy to be an important issue facing the country, rating it similarly with health care, terrorism and national security, and education, and ahead of taxes and the war in Iraq. Half (50%) of voters believe America is headed for an energy crisis in the future, and 35% believe the country already is facing a crisis.
So just how much is the United States government spending on alternative energy research? After the 22% increase the budget will stand at $771 million. This amounts to less than one percent of the $55,000 million the federal government spends annually on research, nearly half of which is devoted to healthcare.
It?s time for action.
Source for figures on federal funding for alternative energy research
President Bush's speech at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
America's Energy Future
Source: http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2006/03/mixed-signals-federal-funding-for.html
Norman Schwarzkopf Gloria Steinem John Candy Carrie Fisher Peyton Manning adobe acrobat air canada Airfare airline tickets airlines
The Market at Washingtonburg
This was the first year we attended The Market at Washingtonburg, located in Carlisle, PA.The setting was 18th-century and living history sutlers selling their crafts lined the grassy fields of the U.S. Army Heritage & Education Center.
Military units marched in formation and shot their reproduction muskets for event-goers.
This was the setting for one of the supply stations that was built along a military road around 1759, during the French and Indian War, where troops could restock their food and munitions.
Reproduction Civil War cabins are permanent structures on the grounds and represent quarters for enlisted men, cooks, and officers. Some reenactors were actually staying in the buildings during the event?their period-correct belongings and bedding (albeit, 18th-century, not 19th) outfitting the rooms?which made it all the more realistic.
Even without the encampment and reenactors, the facility is worth visiting.
Replica World War I trenches and a World War II concrete bunker are open to explore, military aircraft are on display, and the Education Center houses collections of military officers.
Source: http://villagecarpenter.blogspot.com/2010/09/fair-at-washingtonburg.html
kanye west runaway film carolina panthers jackolantern patterns
Austin Energy Excels as #1 Green Energy Electricity Utility in America
UPDATE: This is a list of the top ten green energy programs in the United States with the latest December 2005 figures and links to these electric utilities. One of the biggest differences we can make is to switch to "green energy" - energy generated from 100% renewable sources. Florida Power & Light is a new entry into the top ten at number four. The company recently announced the construction of the largest solar array in Florida on the site of a closed landfill in Sarasota. The 1,200 photovoltaic solar panels are each about 31 inches wide and 63 inches long. The facility is to be more than 28,000 square feet, or about half the size of a football field. "We sought a location that had a ground site large enough for 250 kilowatts of photovoltaic panels," said Jeff Bartel, FP&L VP of external affairs.
If you live in a part of the United States that is not served by an electric utility on this list please see this List of Green Energy Providers by State.
As our energy challenges are global I appreciate every assistance in compiling a similar list of renewable energy providers in other countries. Feel free to email or leave a comment.
Returning to the United States, Austin Energy has shown its commitment to renewable energy by topping the list. The U.S. Department of Energy said Austin Energy's Green Choice program sold more than 334 million hours of renewable energy last year.
More than 350 businesses in Austin get their power from renewable sources as an alternative to fossil fuels.
Austin Energy uses electricity from 61 West Texas wind turbines.
Here's the top ten green energy programs in the United States (as of December 2005).
1. Austin Energy -
areas served include Austin, Texas
green energy from Wind Power, Land Fill Gas, Small Hydro -
435 MWh/year
2. Portland General Electric (PGE) -
areas served include Portland, Oregon
green power from existing Geothermal, Wind Power, Small Hydro - 340 MWh/year
3. PacifiCorp - includes Pacific Power and Utah Power
areas served include:
Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, California, Utah, Idaho
green energy from Wind Power, Biomass, Solar Energy -
234 MWh/year
4. Florida Power & Light - green power from Biomass, Wind Power, Solar Energy - 225 MWh/year
5. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) -
green power from Landfill Gas, Wind Power, Small Hydro, Solar Energy - 195 MWh/year
6. Xcel Energy -
areas served include: Denver,Colorado; Elkhart, Kansas; Wakefield, Michigan; Saint Paul, Minnesota; Roswell, New Mexico; Fargo, North Dakota; Boise City, Idaho; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Amarillo, Texas; Eau Claire, Wisconsin
green electricity from Wind Power - 148 MWh/year
7. National Grid -
areas served include:
New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Nantucket
green power from Biomass, Wind Power, Small Hydro, Solar Energy - 128 MWh/year
8. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (SMUD) -
green power from Wind Power - 114 MWh/year
9. Puget Sound Energy (PSE)-
area served Washington state
green energy from Wind Power, Solar Energy, Biogas -
71 MWh/year
10. OG&E Electric Services -
area served Oklahoma
green electricity from Wind Power - 64 MWh/year
(source: NREL)
MWh/year = million kWh/year rounded down
List of Green Energy Providers by State
One of the single biggest ways we as individuals can encourage the use of alternative energy and help aid the transition to a post fossil fuel age is to buy electricity partly, or preferably completely, generated using alternative energy.
Switching your electricity utility provider may be as simple as requesting a form or filling one in online. That's exactly how I switched to 100% renewable energy (generated mainly from wind power with some solar power and small scale hydro thrown into the mix). Renewable energy options are available throughout the U.K. and in many other countries.
To find out if you can switch to renewable energy in your area look on your search engine of choice for "green energy", "green power" or "green electricity". You may also need to add your location to the search. If your local utility doesn't provide a renewable energy option yet, email or call them and ask why.
Original News 8 Austin Article
Green-e Certified Electricity Products
Source: http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2006/02/austin-energy-excels-as-1-green-energy.html
Arthur Ashe Alfred Hitchcock Anna Nicole Smith Tommy Lee Marilyn Vos Savant Yogi Berra Carl Sagan Danny Glover Ashley Simpson Vladimir Putin
INCA jointer
Hi All,
This my first post and it naturally takes the form of a question.
I have been thinking of replacing my antique 4 inch jointer with a larger one. While looking at kijiji this morning I came across a INCA 8 inch jointer that can be converted to a planer by adding an attachment. As I seem to recall, INCA is a pretty good brand manufactured in Switzerland or some place like that. Does anyone have experience with this machine?
This my first post and it naturally takes the form of a question.
I have been thinking of replacing my antique 4 inch jointer with a larger one. While looking at kijiji this morning I came across a INCA 8 inch jointer that can be converted to a planer by adding an attachment. As I seem to recall, INCA is a pretty good brand manufactured in Switzerland or some place like that. Does anyone have experience with this machine?
Source: http://www.woodworkforums.com/f154/inca-jointer-132021/
$402m Tidal Energy Plant For New Zealand
New Zealand?s Northern Advocate reports that a US $402 million (NZ $600m) proposal to generate electricity with 200 tidal-powered turbines submerged at the entrance to the Kaipara Harbour could get under way next year. The harbour is one of the largest in the world. It?s a broad shallow harbour covering an area of over three hundred square miles and has more than two thousand miles of shoreline. It has a two and a half mile wide entrance to the Tasman Sea halfway along its length.
Although officially called a harbour, the Kaipara is rarely used for shipping, owing to the treacherous tides and bars at its mouth. For this reason, no large settlements lie close to its shores, although small communities dot its coastline.
Crest Energy has applied to the Northland Regional Council for resource consent to set the 22m-tall turbines on the seafloor along about 8km of the 30m deep main channel at the harbour entrance.
The tidal energy is expected to get the turbines generating 200 megawatts of power - enough for 250,000 homes. The turbines, shielded from fish, would sit on heavy concrete pylons and be at least 5m from the surface at low tide. Leisure craft and barges could pass over them, but would be restricted from anchoring in the turbine area.
Two 30km-long cables 125mm in diameter would feed electricity into the national grid.
Crest Energy claims the size and commercial scale of the Kaipara project would make it the largest of its kind in the world.
If the project gets the green light, possibly around the middle of next year, the company plans to raise about $50 million to begin building turbines.
Source: http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2006/11/402m-tidal-energy-plant-for-new.html
Denzel Washington Julia Roberts Magic Johnson Jim Carrey Neil Diamond George Washington Edgar Allen Poe Stephen Hawking Aristotle Hank Aaron
Table Saw Tune-Up Tips
The table saw is, without a doubt, the workhorse of the wood shop. However, a table saw occasionally needs to be tuned-up in order to keep it working in optimum condition. Learn how to determine whether your table saw needs to be aligned, what adjustments to make and how to make them. Once your saw is tuned, you'll see better results on your woodworking plans.
Source: http://woodworking.about.com/od/dealingwithproblems/p/TableSawTuneUp.htm
bruce jenner bcs rankings 2010 vertical horizons treehouse paradise
SEI Solar Training - Are You Ready for the NABCEP PV Technical Sales Certification?
If you are considering starting your own solar business or you have taken technical solar training through Solar Energy International's PV101 or PV202 courses, you may be ready to take the next professional step of preparing to sit for the NABCEP PV Technical Sales Certification.Britney Spears Tyra Banks Michele Pfeiffer Pamela Anderson Roy Rogers Andy Rooney Houdini James Taylor Sean Connery Louis Pasteur
Mtneer_man's Photo of His Woodshop
Woodworker mtneer_man posted this photo of his woodshop showing the west wall of tools and parts storage. Notice the homemade roller table, overhead air lines and table saw with outfeed table.
bcs rankings 2010 unstoppable movie vertical horizons treehouse paradise
UK Energy Minister Charles Hendry at International Energy Forum (Press notice)
22 February 2011
DECC Press Notice: 2011/015
Source: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_015/pn11_015.aspx
Darth Vader Elizabeth Taylor Henri Mancini Lucille Ball Willey Mays Benny Goodman Dan Aykroyd Norman Rockwell Billy Crystal Fred Astaire
Table Saw Jointer Jig
The jointer is a very useful woodworking machine for straightening boards. Don't have a jointer? Try a table saw jointer jig. In this set of free woodworking plans, learn how to build a table saw jointer jig that will allow you to straighten the edges of various sizes of boards with only your table saw.
Source: http://woodworking.about.com/od/woodworkingplansdesigns/ss/JointerJig.htm
Swimming Pool Solar Panels: Effectively Warms Your Pools
Everyone loves to use the swimming pool, having some water fun or simply floating around with your rubber raft on a hot lazy afternoon. Still, you want the water to be just at the right warm temperature. Definitely, whether you want a pool for relaxation, doing your swimming laps or for your overall health, a warm swimming pool simply means comfort. That?s why we can only thank the swimming pool solar panels , or solar swimming pool heaters for efficiently warming our pools, and enhancing the pleasure and enjoyment we get from them. A reliable solar heater warms the pool effectively, adding few more months to the swimming season, regardless of your location?s climate.
Image Credit: Sage
Swimming pool solar panels work simply. First of all is the solar pool panel installation. Next, the water is pumped from the pool into the solar panels. Next, the rays from the sun heats up the water that is stored in the panels. When the desired warm temperature is achieved, the water is then returned to your pool. Now it?s ready for swimming.
While the use of other heaters automatically means monthly bills for electric power, the power derived from swimming pool solar panels and heaters are free. Only a solar heater can provide you with a nice warm pool everyday with zero costs on your part. And approximately in just a year or two of using the heater means it have already paid for itself because of all the power savings that you enjoyed.
And by the way, while you are at it, one of the best ways to reduce loss of heat and hence lessen expenses on pool heating is by the use of solar pool cover. Pool covers very well compliment pool solar panels and so can be considered a wise purchase for your swimming pools.
Image Credit: Sage
Swimming pool solar panels work simply. First of all is the solar pool panel installation. Next, the water is pumped from the pool into the solar panels. Next, the rays from the sun heats up the water that is stored in the panels. When the desired warm temperature is achieved, the water is then returned to your pool. Now it?s ready for swimming.
While the use of other heaters automatically means monthly bills for electric power, the power derived from swimming pool solar panels and heaters are free. Only a solar heater can provide you with a nice warm pool everyday with zero costs on your part. And approximately in just a year or two of using the heater means it have already paid for itself because of all the power savings that you enjoyed.
And by the way, while you are at it, one of the best ways to reduce loss of heat and hence lessen expenses on pool heating is by the use of solar pool cover. Pool covers very well compliment pool solar panels and so can be considered a wise purchase for your swimming pools.
Source: http://my-solar-panel.blogspot.com/2008/09/swimming-pool-solar-panels-effectively.html
Michael Jackson Princess Diana Gandhi Oprah Winfrey Thomas Jefferson Martin Luther King Tom Hanks Beyonce Napoleon Ernest Hemingway
Walnut Gaming Set ~ Solid Stump Chairs & Stump Table
Walnut Gaming Set ~ Solid Stump Chairs & Stump Table 4 solid walnut Stump Chairs & solid walnut stump table base for glass top. The chairs are rough cut with a chainsaw then grinded & sanded for hours before a spar urethane finish. They are all dining chair height to fit with the 29.5” base, that will be 30” with its 1/2” X 48” glass top. The stump top now is 22X30. They are planning on having 3 holes drilled in the glass to attach it with screws to the base. My wife & I hand delivered the pieces to their new home in a Conneticut mansion. The customers were thrilled!!!! So were we! The piano is not staying there.
More pieces like these can be seen & ordered from my site http://www.around-the-bend.com
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)