0
   

Memories of 21, 42, 63 ... the 84th meandering

 
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 10:58 am
@danon5,
clicked
danon5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 09:32 pm
@ehBeth,
Yea!!! We make it through ok ----------- sumac, I do hope it gets to you. We have had over 10 inches rain in a week recently.

In order to mow the grass in the yard - I have a flat bottomed river boat all fixed up with a mower blade underneath. ------- Big Grin

0 Replies
 
danon5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 09:36 pm
@ehBeth,
Yea!!! We make it through ok ----------- sumac, I do hope it gets to you. We have had over 10 inches rain in a week recently.

In order to mow the grass in the yard - I have a flat bottomed river boat all fixed up with a mower blade underneath. ------- Big Grin
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 08:21 am
Glad all is well, Danon. Will go click now.
sumac
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 09:15 am
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/29/business/energy-environment/30roan-image-ready/articleLarge.jpg

October 30, 2009
Plan to Drill on Colorado Plateau Meets Resistance
By SEAN PATRICK FARRELL

RIFLE, Colo. " Standing in a canyon in hilly terrain, Ken Neubecker cast his fly into a cold stream. Minutes later he had a bite. Thrashing at the end of his line was a speckled green fish, a scarce Colorado cutthroat trout.

Mr. Neubecker was fishing on the Roan Plateau, a high stretch of terrain beloved by hunters, anglers and hikers for its clear streams, herds of deer and elk, and rugged beauty.

“There just aren’t many places like this in the West,” Mr. Neubecker said. “It’s a real gem.”

Energy companies are looking at the Roan Plateau, too " through entirely different eyes. Vast deposits of natural gas are believed to lie beneath the stretch on which Mr. Neubecker was fishing, and the companies want to drill.

“What is really special about the Roan Plateau, these lands in particular, is the incredible energy density beneath it,” said Duane Zavadil, vice president of the Bill Barrett Corporation, a Denver energy company that holds drilling rights to the Roan.

The company’s plans are at the center of a battle over the future of the plateau, one that could influence the fate of thousands of acres in the high country known as the intermountain West.

A last-minute leasing push by the Bush administration put extensive federal lands in Utah and Colorado into the hands of oil and gas companies, including 36,000 acres of the Roan Plateau. The Obama administration has inherited the touchy question of what to do with those leases.

As one of his first decisions, Ken Salazar, the Coloradan who is President Obama’s interior secretary, scrapped a series of disputed leases in Utah. Last week, he announced that he would seek an investigation into other leases that granted favorable terms and low royalty rates for experimental projects to extract oil from shale.

But so far, Mr. Salazar has decided against canceling leases on the Roan, saying that he must uphold the buyers’ rights.

Sporting and environmental groups are suing the government in federal court, demanding that the leases be thrown out, and a preliminary ruling is expected this fall.

Lands like those of the Roan Plateau are not the pristine sort of wilderness found in places like Yellowstone or in Rocky Mountain National Park. They are generally cut by roads and have been used as rangeland for cattle for decades.

“The Roan Plateau is a microcosm of the West that up until now would not have received attention,” said Chuck Davis, a professor of environmental politics at Colorado State University. He said groups from across the political spectrum " including city dwellers with second homes, hunters, hikers and ranchers " are increasingly questioning the need for oil and gas development in places like the Roan, concluding that “second or third echelon is still pretty special.”

As Mr. Neubecker acknowledged on his fishing trip, “This isn’t classic Colorado ‘majestic mountain peaks’ country.”

But as the number of truly wild places in the United States dwindles, people like Mr. Neubecker, who is president of the Colorado chapter of a conservation group called Trout Unlimited, are arguing that the nation ought to recalibrate its view of what is worth saving.

This desire to preserve more land is running up against a powerful economic incentive to develop new supplies of oil and gas. In particular, the nation is undergoing a boom in natural gas drilling. New production techniques have expanded the country’s potential reserves of gas by 40 percent in the last few years.

Expanded gas output offers environmental benefits. Burning natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning other fossil fuels, and many experts argue that substitution of gas for dirtier fuels should be a major strategy to reduce the nation’s contribution to global warming.

But some of the methods of getting at the gas " fragmentation, for instance, which breaks up the shale to get to gas pockets " can also pollute water supplies, critics say.

This week, one of the largest gas companies said it would not drill in upstate New York after encountering opposition from local residents.

As it lays plans to exploit the Roan Plateau, the Bill Barrett Corporation is promising sensitivity to the area’s wild character.

The company acquired its drilling rights last year after buying a 90 percent stake in the leases from Vantage Energy, which won them at a federal auction last August. (That auction netted nearly $114 million, a record for a lower-48 onshore lease.)

The company has told investors that if it is allowed to develop the plateau, it may drill as many as 3,200 wells. But Mr. Zavadil said the company would diligently avoid trout streams and minimize other disruptions by using advanced techniques to pack dozens of wells together.

The company has also pledged to develop only portions of the plateau at a time, and to put up money to improve wildlife habitats.

“We can have our cake and eat it, too,” Mr. Zavadil said. “The Roan Plateau will be preserved with oil and gas development. There will be a short while when there are wells being drilled and trucks driving by, but the benefits far outweigh those minimal costs.”

From atop the Roan’s cliffs, it is easy to see signs of encroaching oil and gas development. Service roads, well pads and gas rigs spread out across the valley floor. Such intensive energy development is remaking big parts of the landscape stretching the length of the Rocky Mountains.

Opponents fear that development on top of the Roan Plateau will despoil it, leading to air and water pollution and disruption of wildlife.

In the Bush administration’s leasing program, those potential impacts were not taken fully into consideration, contends Michael Freeman, a lawyer with Earthjustice, which filed the suit calling for the cancellation of the Roan leases.

Mediation in the case is scheduled for Nov. 6. The groups suing the government are asking a judge to revoke the leases. That would not necessarily put the Roan off limits to future development, but it might require a fresh assessment of the environmental risks.

For his part, Mr. Neubecker said he did not oppose drilling for natural gas, but was concerned that it happen in the right places. “I cook with natural gas, and I love the stuff,” he said. But on a tour of the plateau, he pointed out aspects of the landscape that in his view were worth preserving.

The rugged hills are dotted with sage and aspen groves. Some creeks are watering holes for cattle, but most appear untouched, rushing through the deep shale canyons that define the plateau’s topography. Vegetation hangs from some escarpments, and smooth shale slabs hold back pools of trout.

The cutthroat trout that Mr. Neubecker comes to fish from the Roan’s streams have been isolated since the last ice age by the steep canyons and waterfalls.

He asserted that a spill of drilling chemicals could “wipe out this population forever.” In fact, similar trout populations exist elsewhere in the West, but the Roan’s cutthroats are genetically pure, and preserving the fish is a major conservation goal in Colorado.

“There are some places where there are other values that have to considered, above and beyond the strict natural gas value,” Mr. Neubecker said. “And this is one of them.”
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 09:24 am
good earthturn, wildclickers

weather cool but calm and sunny

glad all's well in your neck of the woods, dan

clicked

http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674

danon5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 09:57 am
@Stradee,
Nuther early clickign........... Hi Hoft.........grin

We were lucky here at our spot in NE TX. However, only 50 miles to the E is Shreveport, LA where you may have seen on the Nat'l news a church steeple was blown down and landed on a car - luck had it the occupant is ok.

A bit of trivia = the church in Shreveport, LA is a block from the auditorium where Elvis Presley performed and the phrase, "Elvis has left the building." was first made. That was a long time ago. The building is also the same that the performance, (Louisiana Hayride) performed - first on radio and later on B/W TV. Many C/W performers got their start there. You may remember Minnie Pearl who always came out saying in a high pitched voice, "Howdeeee" and always wore the big straw hat with the price tag still attached........ Ahh, the good old days.

ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 02:07 pm
@danon5,
clicked!

Danon - can you click for me tomorrow and Sunday? puter's still in the hospital Evil or Very Mad
danon5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 03:05 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth, you bet I can. Happy to do so.......
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 04:19 pm
@sumac,
Guys, I'm all clicked too! Distributing Halloween treats tomorrow!
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 08:21 am
Clicked, and here come the Chinese to West Texas.

October 30, 2009
China-U.S. Group Plans to Build Texas Wind Farm
By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF

A consortium of Chinese and American companies announced a joint venture on Thursday to build a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas, using turbines made in China.

Construction of the $1.5 billion wind farm will be financed largely by Chinese banks, with the help of loan guarantees and cash grants from the United States government.

“This wind farm project came about thanks to the openness of the United States for investments in the field of renewable energy,” said John S. Lin, chief operating officer of A-Power Energy Generation Systems, which is part of the consortium building the project.

The wind farm will be the first instance of a Chinese manufacturer exporting wind turbines to the United States, said Yang Yazhou, vice mayor of the city of Shenyang, where the wind turbines will be manufactured.

The farm, to be built on 36,000 acres in West Texas, will use 240 of its 2.5-megawatt turbines. Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2010, and the project is expected to create 300 temporary jobs and about 30 permanent jobs. Six hundred megawatts of wind power is enough to meet the electricity needs of between 135,000 and 180,000 American homes for a year.

Other partners include the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, an investment firm, and a wind-farm developer, Cielo Wind Power of Austin, Tex.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 08:47 am
I can't disagree with the logic in the article below.

Cap-and-trade mirage

By Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel
Saturday, October 31, 2009

Supporters of the climate bill passed by the House and the similar bill under consideration in the Senate -- including President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders -- say that the cap-and-trade approach would guarantee greenhouse-gas reductions. But this claim ignores the flaws inherent in both bills that would undermine even their weak emissions-reduction targets and would lock in climate degradation.

We are speaking out as parents, citizens and attorneys, but our analysis is informed by more than 20 years each at the Environmental Protection Agency's San Francisco Regional Office, including Allan's extensive experience overseeing California's cap-and-trade and offsets programs for the EPA.

Cap-and-trade means a declining "cap" on total emissions, while allowing trading of pollution permits. Confidence in the certainty of declining caps is based on the mistaken assumption that cap-and trade was proven in the EPA's acid rain program. In fact, addressing acid rain required relatively minor modifications to coal-fired power plants. Reductions were accomplished primarily by a fuel switch to readily available, affordable, low-sulfur coal, along with some additional scrubbing. In contrast, the issues presented by climate change cannot be solved by tweaks to facilities; it requires an energy revolution through investments in building clean-energy facilities.

The biggest obstacle to this revolution is that uncontrolled fossil fuel energy remains much cheaper than clean energy. Cap-and-trade alone will not create confidence that clean energy will become profitable within a known time frame and so will not ignite the huge shift in investment needed to begin the clean-energy revolution. In recent interviews, even the economists who thought up cap-and-trade have said they don't believe it's an appropriate tool for climate change.

What guarantees failure of the proposed climate bills, however, are their provisions for carbon offsets, a concept not used in the acid rain program. Both bills allow all required greenhouse-gas reductions for almost 20 years to be met with carbon offsets rather than actual reductions in use of the capped sources. Offsets -- considered indispensable to keeping cap-and-trade affordable -- are supposed to be "additional" reductions beyond what is legally required. But experience with offsets in Europe and California has shown that ensuring real "additionality" is not an achievable goal.

Suppose, for example, that a landowner is paid not to cut his forest so that it can continue capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Purchasing this offset allows owners of a coal-fired power plant to burn extra coal, above the cap.

But if the landowner wasn't planning to cut his forest, he just received a bonus for doing what he would have done anyway. Even if he was planning to cut his forest and doesn't, demand for wood isn't reduced. A different forest will be cut. Either way, there is no net reduction in production of greenhouse gases. The result of this carbon "offset" is not a decrease but an increase -- coal burning above the cap at the power plant.

Or consider the refrigerant HCFC-22, the manufacture of which creates an extremely powerful greenhouse gas as a byproduct. This byproduct is relatively easy and cheap to destroy, and governments could require refrigerant manufacturers to do just that. But offset investors have persuaded regulators to approve destruction of the byproduct as a carbon offset, making it twice as profitable to sell byproduct destruction as it was to sell the refrigerant.

Some have even fought to keep release of this byproduct legal because, otherwise, destruction of the byproduct would no longer produce offsets as it would no longer be "additional." The situation also creates incentive for some to make unneeded refrigerant to profit from byproduct offsets.

Carbon offsets create the illusion of "additional" greenhouse-gas reductions, but we are just getting business as usual. Untrackable shifting of economic activity and perverse incentives such as these are inherent problems for carbon offsets and cannot be solved by certification or verification processes. Since the most flawed offsets will be the cheapest, they will also be the most popular.

The House and Senate climate bills are not a first step in the right direction. They would give away valuable rights in cap-and-trade permits and create a trillion-dollar carbon-offsets market that will not lead to needed reductions. Together, the illusion of greenhouse-gas reductions and the creation of powerful lobbies seeking to protect newly created profits in permits and offsets would lock in climate degradation for a decade or more. The near-term opportunity to create an effective international framework would also be lost.

Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel are lawyers with the Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed here are their own and not those of the EPA. Their discussion paper and video on climate change solutions are online at www.carbonfees.org.
Izzie
 
  3  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 09:16 am
@sumac,
Hey there clikcers

so, nearly 2 weeks post op and up and walking on the feet again Very Happy - walk in the park compared to other surgeries and hoping to go back to work towards the end of next week. Slowly, slowly... but getting there Razz

Hoping all are well and not too many creaks, cricks and clooks going on

here... grab a cupcake... All Hallows Y'all



clicked...

hugs xxxx

Stradee
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 10:01 am
@Izzie,
Hi izzie ((((((((((Hugs))))))))))

Sending Yogi Triple Echinacea vitality tea and cinnamon wafers (fer dunkin')
~ wicker basket arranged for picnickin'... Very Happy

Sending beth's computer super chip n' orbiting dsl - we miss you lots too!

Good day to Teeny, sue, dan and all wildclickers

http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674



sumac
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 12:35 pm
Republicans seek to delay Climate Change bill in Senate.

Republicans move to delay climate bill progress
Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:10pm EDT

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - All seven Republicans on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plan to boycott next week's work session on a climate-change bill, an aide said on Saturday, in a move aimed at thwarting Democratic efforts to advance the controversial legislation quickly.

"Republicans will be forced not to show up" at Tuesday's work session, said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Republican senators on the environment panel.

Under committee rules, at least two Republicans are needed for Chairwoman Barbara Boxer to hold the work sessions that would give senators an opportunity to amend the controversial legislation and then vote to approve it in the panel, which is controlled by President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats.

But Republicans are demanding more detailed economic analysis of the bill by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- a task that could take more than a month -- before agreeing to participate in the work sessions that are called "mark ups."

The seven Republicans have not indicated they ultimately would vote for the bill, which Boxer wants to move through her committee before December's international climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
danon5
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 02:53 pm
@sumac,
Reps are twarting!! That sounds like something I'd rather stay away from. Grin

sumac, W TX already heads the nation in the sheer number of wind generators. I'm not surprised that the Chinese are getting in on the act.

All clicked for my group and ehBeth...............

Hi Izzz (no I'm not sleeping) glad to see you up and around. Great......

0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:12 am
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/11/01/us/01reyes_CA0/articleLarge.jpg

November 1, 2009
Debate Flares on Limits of Nature and Commerce in Parks
By LESLIE KAUFMAN

POINT REYES STATION, Calif. " It seems a perfect marriage of nature and commerce. As boats ferry oysters to the shore, pelicans swoop by and seals pop their heads out of the water.

But this spot on the Point Reyes National Seashore has become a flashpoint for a bitter debate over the limits of wilderness and commercial interest within America’s national parks.

The National Park Service has said it cannot renew the permit to farm oysters in a tidal estuary here, which lapses in 2012, because federal law requires it to return the area to wilderness by eliminating intrusive commercial activity.

Kevin Lunny, the owner of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, says he feels persecuted by the National Park Service and has sought legislation that could allow him to continue operating.

He argues that the 70-year-old oyster farm, which predates the park, is part of the historical working landscape of the area " and every bit as in need of protection as the harbor seals and eelgrass that share the bay.

Mr. Lunny and his allies also accuse the park service’s regional office of issuing faulty scientific reports exaggerating the threat that the oyster farm poses to baby seals and flora in the estuary " accusations given credence last spring by the National Academy of Sciences.

The battle has split the local towns into passionately opposed camps: The Point Reyes Light, a local newspaper, has been critical of the park service, as have many sympathetic ranchers. But other residents and environmental groups cast Mr. Lunny as a savvy businessman manipulating public opinion to win favored status at the expense of the estuary.

The furor over the oyster lease has also drawn in partisans across the country because it plays into an old debate: Are the national parks primarily for preserving untouched wilderness, or for preserving the historic human imprint on the land, too?

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, has thrown her support behind the oyster farm. A provision she attached to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the Interior Department, passed by Congress recently, would give Interior Secretary Ken Salazar the option to extend the oyster farm’s lease for 10 more years.

Some environmental groups worry that the provision could set a precedent for hundreds of other private leaseholders in the national parks looking to extend their stay. For example, some owners of fishing cabins and other vacation properties in the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin want to stay on in perpetuity for similar historical reasons. And federal legislation has been introduced several times to allow the private herds of a hunting club in the Channel Islands National Park in Southern California to remain on the land.

Ms. Feinstein included language in the provision saying that it should not be seen as a precedent, but the environmentalists say those words could prove meaningless.

“This exception is not just about the slippery slope,” said Jerry Meral, vice chairman of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, which has helped organize opposition to the lease extension. “It’s the beginning of the end of wilderness.”

Foes of the provision also include the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Point Reyes National Seashore Association here.

By siding with the oyster farm, Ms. Feinstein has symbolically crossed swords with the Obama administration: Jon Jarvis, President Obama’s new director of the National Park Service, supported ending Mr. Lunny’s lease when he oversaw Point Reyes as a regional parks official.

Many people concerned with protecting the commercial tradition in parks see Mr. Jarvis’s desire to end the lease as evidence that he will usher in an era of antagonism.

“Half the parks have farms or working orchards,” said Gary Paul Nabhan, who served on the National Park System Advisory Board in the early 1990s. “This isn’t a side issue " it is fully as important as wilderness.”

Mr. Jarvis declined to be interviewed about Drakes Bay. Aides at the park service said he saw no benefit in discussing the issue with reporters.

The Drakes Bay farm is a collection of low-lying shacks, residential trailers and piles of shucked oyster shells. Like many of the cattle ranches that surround it within the park, it predated by many decades the creation of the Point Reyes National Seashore in 1962.

In a common arrangement, the federal government bought the land from the owners, who kept the right for occupancy and use until 2012. Unlike the parkland, however, the tidal bay was designated “potential wilderness” " the highest level of protection in a national park " by Congress in 1976. The Interior Department’s solicitor general has interpreted Congress’s action to mean that the park service must get rid of any commercial operations that extract wildlife as soon as it can.

Mr. Lunny, a rancher whose cattle land is in the park just up the hill from the oyster farm, bought the farm’s lease in 2005, although at the time the park service warned him that it intended not to renew.

He contends that the original lease included a clause that allows him to renew and has hired a lobbyist to promote his view in Washington. The park service says that the clause has been superseded by the wilderness legislation. Mr. Lunny also says that he produces roughly 40 percent of the oysters grown in California. Without him, he adds, oysters would be imported from overseas, costing consumers more and taxing the environment through fuel emissions. And he says he is providing environmental services like cleaning the bay of debris and replenishing the native oyster population that filtered the bay before it was overfished by native Indians.

The park service counters that there is no evidence native oysters were ever there in large numbers.

The fight might have been cast as a simple matter of abiding by a wilderness designation, but after the park service worried that Mr. Lunny was beginning to lobby to extend his lease, they moved to counter him.

Managers at Point Reyes produced their own documents saying that the oyster operation’s motorboats were thrashing the eelgrass. The oyster operations, the documents said, were spooking the mother seals off the sandbars and disrupting the birthing season, reducing the number of seals at one site by 80 percent in two years.

The findings were furiously contested by Mr. Lunny, and Ms. Feinstein asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the documents and produce its own report. Issued in May, it found insufficient data to determine whether the seals or other wildlife were being significantly harmed. And it criticized the park service’s reports, saying they had “exaggerated the negative and overlooked potentially beneficial effects of the oyster culture operation.”

Corey Goodman, an academy biologist who studied the science separately for the Marin County Board of Supervisors, said in a letter to Secretary Salazar that “Jon Jarvis participated by steadfastly defending the use of distorted science by his subordinate.”

But Mr. Jarvis, while acknowledging some problems with the science, vigorously stood up for his staff members.

Tom Strickland, the assistant secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks, emphasized that Mr. Jarvis was simply seeking to abide by the law. He said that if Ms. Feinstein’s provision became law, Mr. Salazar would review the issue again.

But many residents of Point Reyes say this will just bring a new round of conflict.

“Rather than heal a rift, this legislation arms everyone with howitzers,” said Mark Bartolini, executive director of the Point Reyes National Seashore Association. “It is a lose-lose decision, and this is a fight that can go one for years.”
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:13 am
November 1, 2009
Prototype
Everybody in the Pool of Green Innovation
By MARY TRIPSAS

A POPULAR children’s song has a refrain " “the more we get together the happier we’ll be” " that may sound like a simplistic formula for solving the complex challenges of climate change and sustainability. But if any area is ripe for sharing and collaboration among organizations, it’s green innovation.

“We all want to save the planet, and the problems are bigger than any one firm, sector or country,” says Dr. Sarah Slaughter, coordinator of the M.I.T. Sloan Sustainability Initiative. In that spirit, several major corporations have taken inspiration from the open-source software movement and are experimenting with forums for sharing environmentally friendly innovations and building communities around them. The first such effort, the Eco-Patent Commons, was started in January 2008 by I.B.M., Nokia, Pitney Bowes and Sony in collaboration with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

The concept is straightforward: Companies pledge environmental patents to the commons, and anyone can use them " free.

Many patented environmental technologies are not strategic, so sharing maximizes the social benefit without sacrificing competitive advantage, says Wayne Balta, vice president of corporate environmental affairs and product safety at I.B.M. For instance, I.B.M. contributed a recyclable cardboard packaging insert that requires less fossil fuel to create and transport than the foam inserts that are now commonly used.

Other examples include a DuPont method for better detecting pollution in soil, air or water by using a microorganism that produces light when exposed to a pollutant. There are also methods from Xerox for removing toxic waste from contaminated groundwater, as well as a cleaning technique for semiconductor wafers from I.B.M. that uses ozone gas and eliminates chemical contaminants that result from other processes.

By assembling these patents in one easily accessible location " anyone can search through them on the council’s Web site " the hope is to encourage their widespread adoption, particularly in the developing world. Since its start, the commons has grown to 100 patents from 31, with 11 companies now participating.

Although there are no formal mechanisms for tracking who has used the commons, participating companies are sometimes contacted by users. For instance, Mr. Balta said that Yale had put into effect an I.B.M. method for decreasing the use of hazardous solvents in its quantum computing device research.

The Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that previously developed licensing programs to help in sharing creative and scientific content, is also planning to branch out into the environmental arena.

In collaboration with Nike and Best Buy, it plans to start a sharing initiative, the Green Xchange, in early 2010. The program will include both patented technologies and forums for continuing exchange of innovations such as Best Buy’s system for rating the sustainability of a supply chain. Companies that contribute patents to the Green Xchange will have the option of charging users a fixed annual licensing fee and can also restrict any licensing by rivals or for competitive use. In addition, even if no annual fee is charged, patent users must register so there is a record of who is using what technology.

Though more complex than that of Eco-Patent Commons, the structure of Green Xchange will yield greater numbers of high-quality inventions, says John Wilbanks, GreenXchange coordinator and vice president for science at Creative Commons.

“We don’t depend on altruism,” Mr. Wilbanks says. “This system helps the environment while enabling a firm to make money from patents in applications outside its core business.”

For instance, Nike’s air-bag patent for cushioning shoes is crucial to its core shoe business, but may have environmental benefits in other industries " perhaps in prolonging the useful life of tires. Green Xchange could enable Nike to license the air-bag technology selectively to noncompeting companies.

ACCORDING to Kelly Lauber, a global director in Nike’s Sustainable Business and Innovation Lab, sharing technology can have tremendous environmental impact. By sharing its water-based adhesive technology and working with footwear makers, Ms. Lauber estimates that average levels of environmentally harmful solvents used by Nike’s suppliers have decreased to less than 15 grams per pair of shoes from 350 in 1997.

Perhaps the biggest upside of Green Xchange may come from the development of communities that collaborate in innovation and the exchange of ideas. To encourage that kind of interaction, Salesforce.com will provide a search engine, making it easy to find patents. And collaboration platforms from companies like 2degrees and nGenera should make it easy to identify companies with common interests.

Despite the obvious advantages, sharing patents isn’t as easy as it might sound.

“Numerous features of the intellectual property system, particularly the ability of companies to claim large swaths of technology through patents, play havoc with collaborative efforts,” says Josh Lerner, a professor at Harvard Business School.

Henry Chesbrough, the executive director of the Center for Open Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley, says it is surprisingly hard to give away technologies. “If it is not done carefully,” he said, “the companies that use a donated technology might find themselves liable for infringement of another company’s patent.”

Both the Eco-Patent Commons and the Green Xchange pose organizational challenges for participating companies.

“Deciding which patents to pledge or license to a commons,” says Andrew King, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, “requires that the legal counsel, R.& D. staff, business unit and corporate sustainability groups all work together, and most organizations just aren’t set up for that.”

Weaving corporate togetherness, it seems, isn’t so easy " though green innovations offer many more reasons to try.
sumac
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:31 am
@sumac,
November 1, 2009
A Bid to Cut Emissions Looks Away From Coal
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON " As Congress debates legislation to slow global warming by limiting emissions, engineers are tinkering with ways to capture and store carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas.

But coal-fired power plants, commonly identified as the nation’s biggest emissions villain, may not be the best focus.

Rather, engineers and policymakers say, it may be easier and less costly to capture the carbon dioxide at oil refineries, chemical plants, cement factories and ethanol plants, which emit a far purer stream of it than a coal smokestack does.

Carbon dioxide typically makes up only 10 percent to 12 percent of a coal plant’s emissions, they note, and the gas is so mixed with pollutants that it is difficult to separate.

Cheaper strategies for sequestering carbon dioxide could prove especially important if Congress passes a law setting up a so-called cap-and-trade system. That would set a national ceiling for overall emissions and allot pollution allowances to utilities, manufacturers and other emitters, which could then trade them among themselves.

Companies that exceed their carbon dioxide emission allowances could buy credits from those that pollute less. Under such a system, a coal plant that had exceeded its allotment might pay a chemical plant that could separate a ton of carbon dioxide more cheaply.

“If we have a cap-and-trade scheme, it will happen wherever it is the most cost-effective,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a lawyer and former assistant administrator for air and radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lending momentum to this thinking, a Texas company, Denbury Resources, is building a 320-mile pipeline for carbon dioxide that will run from Louisiana to Houston.

Initially the pipeline will take natural underground deposits of carbon dioxide in Mississippi to the aging oil fields of east Texas, where it can be used to force more oil to the surface.

But as the pipeline threads its way through more and more refineries and plants " the chemical heartland of the United States " manmade carbon dioxide captured at those sites could also be added and stored.

Sequestering a ton of carbon dioxide from a chemical plant would have the same effect on the Earth’s atmosphere as storing a ton from a coal plant, scientists and industry executives emphasize.

“Sequestration is not a coal technology " it is a greenhouse gas abatement strategy,” said S. Julio Friedmann, leader of the carbon management program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Last month, the Energy Department announced $44 million in grants to develop the technology, known generally as carbon capture.

Among them was $1.72 million for Praxair, a chemical company based in Connecticut that operates two plants near Houston that make hydrogen for use in oil refineries.

The money will go toward developing engineering studies on how to capture carbon dioxide from the hydrogen production and deliver it to Denbury.

Carbon dioxide makes up 20 percent of the gas resulting from hydrogen production, twice the concentration found in a gas stream from a typical coal plant. Recovering it from this stream rather than a coal plant smokestack would therefore be cheaper and simpler.

In the oil industry, drillers have for years tapped underground reservoirs of carbon dioxide, brought it to the surface and moved it by pipeline to oil fields. Then they inject it into the fields to help force oil to the surface in a process called “enhanced oil recovery.”

If the oil industry left the natural carbon dioxide where it was, and drew on carbon dioxide from industrial plants instead, far less manmade carbon dioxide would enter the atmosphere, experts say.

What oil drillers pay for carbon dioxide depends on the value of the oil it will help produce. When oil is at $70 a barrel, carbon dioxide goes for $10 or $11 a ton, said Tracy Evans, the chief executive of Denbury, the Texas company building the carbon dioxide pipeline.

Should the Congressional legislation mandate a cap-and-trade system, that modest price could be very important. “Wherever you can go to store a ton of carbon the most cheaply, you will go,” said Mr. Holmstead, the former E.P.A. administrator for air.

Another likely source of pure streams of carbon dioxide are plants that refine natural gas. The natural gas usually comes out of the ground mixed with carbon dioxide, which natural gas sellers routinely remove so the natural gas can be considered “pipeline quality.” That carbon dioxide is sometimes reinjected into the ground, but sometimes vented.

Then there are cement kilns, which produce a nearly pure stream of carbon dioxide.

For now, no one is sure what it will cost to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal plants because the first such project in the nation, at American Electric Power’s coal-fired plant in New Haven, W.Va., got under way only last month. At the moment, the process consumes 30 percent of the coal plant’s energy, but engineers are working to cut that in half.

Even so, experts expect the price to run to $60 a ton or more. But pure streams could be captured for the cost of drilling a natural gas well and compressing the gas into liquid form " perhaps $10 to $15 a ton, Dr. Friedmann of the Livermore laboratory said.

Bruce Nilles, director of the National Coal Campaign at the Sierra Club, also cites natural gas plants as a promising avenue for carbon capture. Natural gas has only half as much carbon dioxide in it as coal does. So the equipment needed to separate and sequester the carbon dioxide at a gas plant would be half as big as the machinery at a coal plant of the same size, and would cost less to build and operate.

Mr. Nilles and others say that biomass fuels, derived from wood, waste and alcohol, could offer an even better opportunity for carbon capture. If an electric plant burns wood chips or other plant material in place of coal, it produces a stream of smoke from which carbon dioxide can be taken and then injected deep into the earth.

The advantage is that if a tree is cut down and burned in a boiler, a new tree can grow in its place, and absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That makes the process “carbon negative;” for each ton burned, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will decline.

Eventually, Mr. Evans of Denbury said, most of the carbon sequestration will come from the power sector, because it is a far larger emitter than the chemical or refining sectors.

But for the moment, he said, for companies like his, which use carbon dioxide to drill for oil, there is something of a shortage. His company is still drilling for natural deposits of carbon dioxide, he said, and “we don’t have any to sell to others.”
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 10:54 am
Did ya all remember to reset your clocks?



When Clocks Change, Body May Need Time to Adjust

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/whenclockschangebodymayneedtimetoadjust



http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 05:06:51