Category Archives: green energy

Wall Street Wants to Lend You Money to Fight Climate Change

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared in The Atlantic and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The latest series of reports from the United Nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned in stark terms the catastrophic consequences of the world’s governments’ decades-long foot-dragging on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

But what can you do? For one thing, fix up your damn house. That furnace, from the Reagan era, the inefficient water heater, the drafty windows? They’re directly contributing to climate change. Homes consume 22 percent of the US’s energy and, along with commercial buildings, account for 10 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions.

The chances of the US government enacting a carbon tax, emissions trading scheme or taking other sweeping action to tackle climate change may be next to nil. But thanks to an innovative new initiative from financial conglomerate Citi, the Pennsylvania state treasury and non-profits, homeowners across the country soon will be able to tap a $100 million fund to instantly secure low-cost loans to do everything from installing solar panels on their roof to replacing that roof. Contractors will authorized to offer the loans, meaning no need to deal with state or local bureaucrats who will administer the program.

It’s just another example of how financial innovation has become key to getting the green tech innovations dreamed up in Silicon Valley into the hands of homeowners as well as prompting them to undertake low-tech efforts like insulating their attics.

“There’s no question that energy efficiency technology has outpaced the financial technology,” Cisco DeVries, chief executive of Renewable Funding, an Oakland, California, company that designs green energy-financing programs, told The Atlantic.

Renewable Funding later this year will begin to securitize the loans–called Warehouse for Energy Efficiency Loans, or WHEEL–and sell the securities to pension funds and other investors. That will generate a cash flow to fund further energy efficiency improvements.

“What we’ve set up is an indefinitely scalable program,” says DeVries. “We can purchase loans and securitize them and the more we do it, the cheaper the funds become. This has no limit to its capacity.”

It will certainly need to scale. According to a 2009 McKinsey study it’ll take $229 billion to cut home energy use by about a third.

Still, until WHEEL most homeowners faced with spending five figures on just replacing their windows either had to tap home equity lines or their high-interest credit cards to pay for such improvements. And people tend to make energy efficiency fixes piece-meal, replacing the hot water heater when it breaks, for instance.

The availability of a five, seven or 10-year loan would encourage people to obtain energy audits and comprehensive upgrades to their homes. The payoff is lower energy bills that would help pay back the loans.

Three years in the works, WHEEL is based on a successful Pennsylvania program and initially is available in that state and Kentucky. DeVries expects California and other states to be added by the end of 2014 with nationwide coverage in 2015.

View original: 

Wall Street Wants to Lend You Money to Fight Climate Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, LG, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wall Street Wants to Lend You Money to Fight Climate Change

Ukraine belatedly seeks renewable energy as weapon against Russia

Ukraine belatedly seeks renewable energy as weapon against Russia

Shutterstock

It took a military invasion to get Ukrainian leaders to look seriously at renewable energy.

Ukraine is buying up as much natural gas as it can from Russia before its military tormentors cut off the spigot. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that his Eastern European neighbor had a month to pay its back bills or be forced to start paying in advance for its gas. Bloomberg analyzed energy data and reported Monday that Ukrainians nearly trebled their daily gas imports following Putin’s statement.

But the crisis hasn’t just triggered a fossil fuel buying spree. It has prompted Ukrainian officials to reimagine their embattled nation’s very energy future. From a separate Bloomberg article:

Ukraine is seeking U.S. investment in its biomass, wind and solar power industries. The idea is to use renewable energy to curb its reliance on fuel imports from Russia, which annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region last month and has troops massed on the border.

“Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine indeed brought energy security concerns to the fore,” Olexander Motsyk, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., said at a renewable-energy conference at his country’s embassy in Washington yesterday. “I strongly believe the time has come for U.S. investors to discover Ukraine, especially its energy.” …

[T]he Energy Industry Research Center said Ukraine’s heating supply accounts for about 40 percent of all gas imported from Russia, which could be replaced with renewable energy within three to five years.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainians are a little late getting started on a green energy blitz. By 2030, hopefully long after military tensions have eased, the country could be getting just 15 percent of its energy supply from renewables, the Energy Industry Research Center estimates — up from a miserable 2 percent today.


Source
Ukraine Boosts Russian Gas Imports as Prepayment Threat Looms, Bloomberg
Ukraine Seeks Renewable-Energy Boost to Counter Russia, Bloomberg

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Source:

Ukraine belatedly seeks renewable energy as weapon against Russia

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, ONA, organic, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine belatedly seeks renewable energy as weapon against Russia

The Right Wing Trains Its Hysterical Eye on Renewable Energy

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Evan Halper of the LA Times filed a story this weekend about new conservative efforts to fight America’s biggest energy scourge: solar power. And they’re dead serious:

The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the nation’s largest power companies have backed efforts in recent months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.

….At the nub of the dispute are two policies found in dozens of states. One requires utilities to get a certain share of power from renewable sources. The other, known as net metering, guarantees homeowners or businesses with solar panels on their roofs the right to sell any excess electricity back into the power grid at attractive rates.

….The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a membership group for conservative state lawmakers, recently drafted model legislation that targeted net metering. The group also helped launch efforts by conservative lawmakers in more than half a dozen states to repeal green energy mandates.

“State governments are starting to wake up,” Christine Harbin Hanson, a spokeswoman for Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group backed by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, said in an email. The organization has led the effort to overturn the mandate in Kansas, which requires that 20% of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources.

There are, technically speaking, some colorable objections to the way net metering (or feed-in tariffs, a similar concept) operate. Sometimes the incentive schemes go awry, and sometimes the pricing goes awry. It’s reasonable to insist that these programs be evaluated regularly and rigorously, and modified where necessary. Mandates need to be designed properly too, though in practice they tend to have fewer problems since they allow a lot of flexibility in implementation.

But does anyone think this is what’s going on here? A calm, technocratic effort to make sure these programs work better? Of course not. We’ve now entered an era in which affinity politics has gotten so toxic that even motherhood and apple pie are fair targets if it turns out that liberals happen to like apple pie. There are dozens of good reasons that we should be building out solar as fast as we possibly can—plummeting prices, overdependence on foreign oil, poisonous petrostate politics, clean air—but yes, global warming is one of those reasons too. And since global warming has now entered the conservative pantheon of conspiratorial hoaxes designed to allow liberals to quietly enslave the economy, it means that conservatives are instinctively opposed to anything even vaguely related to stopping it. As a result, fracking has become practically the holy grail of conservative energy policy, while solar, which improves by leaps and bounds every year, is a sign of decay and creeping socialism.

Does it help that the Koch brothers happen to be oil barons who don’t want to see the oil industry lose any of the massive government support it’s gotten for decades? It sure doesn’t hurt, does it?

If there’s anything that liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on, it’s the benefit of renewable power. It’s as close to a no-brainer as you can get. But President Obama made green programs part of his stimulus package, and that was that. When tea-party hysteria took over the conservative movement, renewable energy became one of its pariahs. Griping about Solyndra is ancient history. Today’s conservatives oppose renewable energy for the same reason they’ve gone nuts over Benghazi and the IRS and Syrian rebels: to show solidarity to the cause. Welcome to modern American politics.

Original link: 

The Right Wing Trains Its Hysterical Eye on Renewable Energy

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, green energy, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Right Wing Trains Its Hysterical Eye on Renewable Energy

Green In All The Wrong Places

Green In All The Wrong Places in All the Wrong Places: The Scam That is the Hybrid

I am as planetarily conscious as the next guy, but I’m also practical. Apparently those two things go together like oil and water. Today’s catch phrase of “going green” seems to be less about actually fixing anything and more to do with making money. Prime example? Hybrids.
Now, before you get your dreadlocks in a tangle, let me point out that I clearly stated in the first sentence that I am practical. Therefore, all of the “environmental” self-rehearsed head speak that is about to fall out of your mouth is useless. I’m about to shed some light on the myth that is the hybrid car, and its actual effect on the environment: there is only one real way to save the planet from vehicular air pollution, and that is to slide those Birkenstocks on and walk. Short of that, we have to drive and that will always remain somewhat of an issue for us and the environs.
If you want to argue the environmental aspect of hybrids, keep in mind that the technology exists right now for zero emission vehicles that use a renewable power source that’s availability could eliminate our reliance of fossil fuels. Not reduce: eliminate. Hybrid cars are the environmental equivalent of a pacifier.

The real point of this conversation is the clean green wool that has been pulled over people’s eyes in an attempt to sell a car. The Hybrid comes at us as some sort of salvation from the dreaded and dangerous gas pump simply by playing on the notion that less gas is less money spent and that’s somehow better for the planet. Simple concepts applied to even simpler logic makes people ignore things like the fact that a Prius is actually less cost effective and has little, if any, environmental impact.

A Simple example

earth911

View this article:  

Green In All The Wrong Places

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, Holiday shopping, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Green In All The Wrong Places

Recyclebank Rewards Schools for Innovative Green Initiatives

Photo: Recyclebank

Recyclebank‘s eighth annual Green Schools Program is moving along at full force.

In case you aren’t familiar with the program, it awards grant money to schools for unique projects that will green their classroom and community.

Since 2007, the Green Schools program has granted close to $450,000 that helped more than 150 schools across the country bring their sustainable ideas to life.

From now until March 16, Recyclebank members are encouraged to donate points to schools of their choice participating in the program to help them reach their target funding goals.

Members can learn about the schools’ project ideas, donate their points and track each school’s progress online. For every 250 member points donated, Recyclebank awards schools $1 that can be used toward their green project.

Twenty-nine schools are participating in the program this year, with projects ranging from school gardens and recycling programs to upcycled art projects. Each school can request up to $2,500 in grant money for their project.

“The whole reason we feel so strongly about the Green Schools Program is that we want to empower youth to be thinking about the environment, thinking about what they can do–in their school, in their community, in their home–to make an impact,” Karen Bray, vice president of marketing at Recyclebank, told Earth911.

In addition to member donations, Domtar Corp. is supporting the Green Schools Program for the second year in a row and will contribute additional donation dollars as well as a year’s supply of its EarthChoice Office Paper to the school with the most innovative project.

So far, Burton Elementary School in Huntington Woods, Mich. has already achieved its $2,500 goal to fund a lunchroom waste reduction program. Keith Elementary in Cypress, Texas also met its $850 target to construct an on-site greenhouse for environmental education, while Central High School in Philadelphia crossed the finish line for its $2,000 goal to restore patio boxes for urban gardening.

Two other Philadelphia schools, Springside Chestnut Hill Academy and Philadelphia Performing Arts Charter School, are also tantalizingly close their funding goals to construct birdhouses and launch a recycling program. Other leading projects so far include a horticultural project and a school-wide art installation.

For Recyclebank, these projects represent small changes that carry potentially big impacts for the future of our planet.

“A lot of the conversations around being a little greener center around the next generation,” Bray noted “So what better way to start to build that awareness and that passion than going directly to the students and giving back a little bit?”

To view a full list of participating schools, donate to your favorite and track their progress, visit the Green Schools Program online.

earth911

Source: 

Recyclebank Rewards Schools for Innovative Green Initiatives

Posted in alo, FF, GE, green energy, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Recyclebank Rewards Schools for Innovative Green Initiatives

Proposed Bill Seeks to Boost Clean Energy Curriculum in Public Schools

Photo: Flickr/calmenda

A proposed Senate bill seeks to expand “green” energy curriculum to public middle and high schools across the country.

Proposed by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the bill would provide grant funding to colleges with green energy curriculum to expand their programs to middle and high schools, reports local Wisconsin paper Manitowoc Herald Times. The goal, the paper reported, is to get students interested in green jobs earlier in their educational careers.

Speaking in favor of the legislation, the paper asserted: “That is a good idea, regardless of where one stands on the controversial issue of expanding green energy in the future. It is not a given that wind, solar and other forms of alternative energy are the panacea advocates claim.

“Baldwin’s legislation, however,” the reporter goes on, “will help broaden educational opportunities for middle school and high school students, which is what those schools are supposed to do.”

Dubbed the Grants for Renewable Energy Education for the Nation (GREEN) Act, the bill asks for $100 million in federal funding for grants, which would be administered by the U.S. Department of Education. The bill is a companion to the House GREEN Act, sponsored by Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.).

Introduced to the Senate floor in late January, the bill has already been endorsed by the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE).

ACTE Deputy Executive Director Steve DeWitt said the bill, “offers students exposure to the range of sustainable energy career options available today, while providing the education and training necessary to ensure that our nation’s workforce is prepared for the green jobs of the future.”

The fate of the bill is still to be decided, but Baldwin rightfully notes that jobs created in the clean energy field pay better than the average American job, with compensation rates 13 percent higher than the national average, meaning its passage may mean good things for the next generation.

earth911

Read this article:  

Proposed Bill Seeks to Boost Clean Energy Curriculum in Public Schools

Posted in alo, alternative energy, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, LAI, ONA, solar, solar power, sustainable energy, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Proposed Bill Seeks to Boost Clean Energy Curriculum in Public Schools

What’s worse than burning coal? Burning wood

What’s worse than burning coal? Burning wood

Shutterstock

In its scramble for new and clean energy sources, the U.S. government is failing to see the forest for the burning trees.

The burning of biomass to produce electricity is marketed as clean and renewable, and promoted by federal policies. But a report published Wednesday concludes that burning wood is more polluting than burning coal.

More than 70 wood-burning plants are under construction or have been built in the U.S. since 2005, with 75 more planned, according to the analysis by the nonprofit Partnership for Public Integrity.

For every megawatt-hour of electricity produced, even the “cleanest” of the American biomass plants pump out nearly 50 percent more carbon dioxide than coal-burning plants, PFPI staff researcher Mary Booth, a former Environmental Working Group scientist, concluded after poring over data associated with 88 air emissions permits. The biomass plants also produce more than twice as much nitrogen oxide, soot, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic matter as coal plants.

The problem is rooted in lax regulations for an industry that’s widely mistaken to be clean. EPA rules allow biomass-burning plants to produce more than twice as much pollution as coal plants.

Click to embiggen.

Worsening the problem, many wood-burning power plants are partly fueled with contaminated waste wood, including paint-coated construction debris. From the report:

Because of this perfect storm of lax regulation and regulatory rollbacks, biomass power plants marketed as “clean” to host communities are increasingly likely to emit toxic compounds like dioxins; heavy metals including lead, arsenic, and mercury; and even emerging contaminants, like phthalates, which are found in the “waste-derived” fuel products that are being approved under new EPA rules. …

As such, it is not a stretch to conclude that biomass plants being permitted throughout the country combine some of the worst emissions characteristics of coal-fired power plants and waste incinerators, all the while professing to be clean and green. …

The air permit for the 70 MW Burgess BioPower plant in Berlin, New Hampshire states it will burn close to a million tons of trees a year, consuming “whole logs” at a rate of 113 tons per hour, the equivalent of clear-cutting more than one acre of New Hampshire’s forests every hour.

The U.S. government isn’t just tolerating these polluting and deforesting practices — it’s helping to bankroll them with subsidies and tax credits.

“The American Lung Association has opposed granting renewable energy subsidies for biomass combustion precisely because it is so polluting,” association official Jeff Seyler said. “Why we are using taxpayer dollars to subsidize power plants that are more polluting than coal?”

It’s sometimes argued that biomass fuel helps the climate, because the trees suck up carbon dioxide as they grow, offsetting the emissions that are released when the fuel is burned. But the report notes that it can take decades for forests to suck up the carbon dioxide that’s released when they are incinerated — and that “carbon offsets are never actually required to be obtained or demonstrated by these plants.”

The worrisome trend toward subsidized wood-burning plants is not just confined to the U.S. American trees are being cut down and exported to the U.K., where they are being burned to produce electricity and to earn British green energy subsidies.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Follow this link: 

What’s worse than burning coal? Burning wood

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What’s worse than burning coal? Burning wood

WATCH: Is This Man the Greenest Governor in America?

green4us

If Jay Inslee succeeds in his ambitious climate and energy goals, the impacts will extend far beyond Washington state. When Jay Inslee was elected governor of the state of Washington in November of 2012, climate campaigners rejoiced. As a congressman, Inslee had a top-tier environmental record, and not just that: He knew climate and clean energy issues inside-out. The co-author of the 2007 book entitled Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy, he also worked closely on the 2009 passage of cap-and-trade legislation in the US House of Representatives and was a co-founder of the House’s Sustainable Energy Caucus. No wonder that upon his election in Washington, the League of Conservation Voters declared that Inslee was poised to become “the greenest governor in the country.” Sure enough, Inslee’s term got off to a great start: Last October, he joined the governors of Oregon and California and the Premier of British Columbia in endorsing the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy which pledges that those states (or, in BC’s case, that province) will set a consistent price or cap on carbon dioxide emissions (something California and British Columbia have already done), adopt low-carbon fuel standards, and more. But there’s just one problem: Shortly after Inslee’s election, two Democrats elected to caucus with the Republican minority in the Washington state senate, thus thwarting what otherwise would have been a Democratic majority in both houses. Instead of holding a 26-23 majority in the Senate, Democrats instead became a de facto 25-24 minority. And that razor-thin edge in the Washington state Senate is currently blocking Inslee from achieving many of his objectives. The partisan tension became apparent with Washington state’s Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup, or CLEW, a bipartisan panel composed of two Republican and two Democratic legislators, along with Inslee as a non-voting member. Their task was to recommend a set of policies that would let Washington state adhere to greenhouse gas emissions goals that had been enacted in 2008: a reduction to 1990 emissions levels by 2020, then 25 percent below those levels by 2035, and finally, fifty percent below by 2050. The workgroup convened sessions and public deliberations around the state—but reached no bipartisan consensus. “We had over 900 citizens come out speaking overwhelmingly in favor of climate action, and close to 10,000 comments,” says Becky Kelley, deputy director of the Washington Environmental Council. “So, evidence that people really are calling for action.” Yet the Democrats and Republicans on the working group could not find common ground. They issued two separate reports, with the Democrats and Inslee endorsing strong climate action and the Republicans suggesting a variety of options, but not a central policy to cap greenhouse gas emissions, citing a “currently insufficient analysis of costs.” There has been more friction on the issue of a proposed low carbon fuel standard. In a January 2014 letter, Inslee charged Republican State Senator Curtis King, who co-chairs the Transportation Committee, with having misrepresented the governor’s policy goals by incorrectly labeling the standard a “tax.” In fact, the idea is to require a gradual reduction in the carbon content of fuels through a variety of means, ranging from blending in biofuels to encouraging more electric vehicles. “There is no element of a clean fuels standard that could in any way be called a ‘tax,’” wrote Inslee, later adding that a standard “would include cost containment measures to ensure that fuel prices are not significantly affected.” King responded by asking Inslee to “categorically deny” any intention to impose a fuel standard by executive action, in effect bypassing the legislature. King later charged that Inslee “refuses” to take this option off the table. And even as Inslee faces Republican resistance at home, his climate action partners may be growing a little impatient. British Columbians, for instance, have already put a price on carbon through a carbon tax, and are waiting for their southern ally to catch up to them. In the meantime, there are frequent charges that drivers who go across the border into Washington to gas up are partially undermining the tax’s effectiveness, and at least some evidence that this is happening, at least to a modest extent. All of which underscores that if Washington acts strongly on climate, the impact will extend far beyond Washington. For the state will be strengthening and reinforcing what California and British Columbia have already done, and the more these Pacific coast states are unified, the more the United States and even the world will have to take notice. “The sense is that if the west coast as a bloc acts, if we’ve got real climate policy from BC to Baja, that’s the world’s fifth largest economy,” says Kelly of the Washington Environmental Council. In the meantime, though, Inslee’s position within his state is much like that of President Barack Obama nationally, observes David Roberts of Grist magazine. “He wants to act, but he’s got no Republicans in the legislature on his side,” says Roberts, “so if he gets anything done, it’s going to be through executive powers.” So what happens next? Eric de Place, policy director of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based environmental think tank, thinks that if gridlock persists beyond 2014, there’s a chance that a citizen-led ballot initiative in Washington state could allow the public to vote directly on how to curb carbon emissions. Before, that, though, he thinks that Inslee may ultimately try to opt for a policy, like a carbon tax, that might be made palatable to state Republicans: The tax could be designed so that the revenue that it brings in would go towards other state budget shortfalls, such as in the transportation sector and in education. In his inaugural address as governor, Inslee declared that on leading the nation in green policy, “It is clear to me that we are the right state, at the right time, with the right people.” But now, that delicate balance may have shifted. “I’m certain the governor feels that not enough is getting done on climate action,” says Eric de Place of the Sightline Institute. The question is what Inslee plans to do about it. Image: Joe Mabel/Wikimedia Commons

See original article here: 

WATCH: Is This Man the Greenest Governor in America?

Related Posts

2 Former Premiers Try to Use Tokyo Election to Rally Public Against Nuclear Power
Climate Pact Is Signed by 3 States and a Partner
Which States Use the Most Green Energy?
How Science Can Predict Where You Stand on Keystone XL
California governor signs bill legalizing hemp farming in the state

Share this:

View article:  

WATCH: Is This Man the Greenest Governor in America?

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, Monterey, ONA, organic, Oster, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, sustainable energy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on WATCH: Is This Man the Greenest Governor in America?

Like Meat and Beer? Hate Cancer?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Spring is coming. Before long, beer-drinking men and women will be coaxing fiery embers to life and tossing dead animals onto charred metal grates above them. Ahh, the sizzle and snap of fat as it hits red hot coals. Oh no! What’s that you say? Carcinogens are caused by the “contact of dripping fat with hot embers“?

Fear not, eager human. And keep a couple of your dark winter beers handy, because researchers from Portugal and Spain have found that marinating your pork chops in dark beer dramatically reduces carcinogenic contamination. Rejoice!

Smoke, pyrolysis (organic matter decomposing in intense heat), and dripping fat can all cause the accumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on charcoal-grilled meats. According to the EPA, PAHs have caused tumors, birth defects, and “reproductive problems” in lab animals—though the Agency clarifies that these effects have not yet been observed in humans. You can also find PAHs in cigarette smoke and car exhaust.

The researchers tested the effect of marinating meat with Pilsner, nonalcohol Pilsner, and Black beer, against a control sampling of raw meat. Black beer show the strongest “inhibitory effect,” reducing the formation of carcinogenic PAHs by 53 percent. Pilsner beer and nonalcholic Pilsner, showed less significant results: 13 percent and 25 percent respectively. The scientists aren’t entirely sure why a beer marinade has this effect; they speculate that it might be the antioxidant compounds in beer, especially darker varieties, which inhibit the movement of free radicals necessary for the formation of PAHs.

The study, which will be published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, and sponsored by the University of Porto and the American Chemical Society, confirms what we always knew in our hearts: Guinness is good for you.

Credit:  

Like Meat and Beer? Hate Cancer?

Posted in Anchor, Aroma, Eureka, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Like Meat and Beer? Hate Cancer?

GOP Lawmakers Scramble To Court Tesla

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Electric vehicle sales in New Jersey ran out of batteries earlier this month, when the Chris Christie administration voted to ban car manufacturers from selling directly to drivers. The companies must now use third-party dealers. The ban applies to all car manufacturers, but seemed particularly aimed at Tesla, which had been in negotiations with the administration for months to sell electric cars straight from its own storefronts in the state.

The move was a win for the state’s surprisingly powerful auto dealer lobby and a loss for one of the country’s biggest electric car makers. But it also cemented New Jersey’s place as a non-contender for the real prize: a $5 billion battery “gigafactory” that Tesla plans to begin construction on later this year. With an estimated 6,500 employees, the factory will likely become a keystone of the United State’s clean energy industry and an economic boon for its host state. Now, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada are scrambling to get picked, and last week Republican legislators in Arizona began to try pushing their state to the top of the pile.

It’s the latest sign that, at least at the state level, the clean energy industry’s best friend might be the GOP. Newt Gingrich quickly pounced on Christie after the direct sales ban for “artificially” insulating car dealers, just weeks after calling for John Kerry to resign after Kerry named climate change as a principle challenge of the generation. On Tuesday, Texas Governor Rick Perry called his state’s direct sales ban “antiquated” nearly a year after a Democrat-backed bill to change the policy was killed.

New Jersey and Texas aren’t the only states where you can’t buy a Tesla car directly from the company: Arizona and Maryland also have direct sales bans. But a bill passed out of committee in Arizona’s GOP-controlled Senate last week would reverse the state’s position and allow electric vehicle companies to sell directly out of their showrooms. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Warren Peterson (R-Gilbert) said he was spurred by the New Jersey situation to amend what he sees as a creeping assault on free market principles.

“For me, it’s not about Tesla or electric cars,” he said. “For me, a big concern I have now is we are limiting someone’s choice.”

But despite backing from some prominent Arizona Republicans (Sen. John McComish told the Arizona Daily Star he didn’t see why the state should “prevent someone else who has a better idea from making an effort to enter that industry”), Warren said he’s faced opposition from others who see the bill as damaging to the state’s traditional car market or a handout to Tesla, arguments that swayed the decision in New Jersey.

“I have a tough time understanding why Republicans are opposed to it, because free markets are such a big part of the platform,” he said. “States that moved away from this have made a big mistake.”

Continue Reading »

Original link:

GOP Lawmakers Scramble To Court Tesla

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on GOP Lawmakers Scramble To Court Tesla