New natural gas mining techniques and a warm winter has helped push the cost of natural gas down, providing relief to customers even as demand for the gas continues to rise.

According to recent reports the cost of natural gas has plummeted by 35 percent over the past year.

Part of the price drop comes from new drilling techniques which have pushed up supply as a rate that is outpacing higher demand.

Natural Gas Prices Low As Warm Winter Continues, Supply Climbs is a post from: The Inquisitr

Regardless of what some people might have you believe there will come a point when our fossil fuels will run out, and even though the debate about how long that might really be rages on some companies are looking to find our future fuels.

At the top of the most talked about replacements is biofuels. There is a wide range of substances that are being touted as being the king of the pile when it comes to biofuels with every from corn to garbage and recycled petroleum products to plant matter, otherwise referred to a cellulosic biofuel.

In a recent report issued by the National Academy of Science they took a look at the biofuel production and how close the industry as a whole would meet the Renewable Fuel Standard which mandates that companies in the industry be producing 32 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. The RFS, which was created by Congress back in 2007, states we should expect 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol, one billion gallons of biodiesel, and finally 15 billion gallons of cellulosic fuels.

However the study has found that the companies involved in creating cellulosic fuels may not be able to meet those targets, which the other biofuels should be able to reach the RFS goals. Part of the problem is the incredible high cost of building the plants needed, between $200 to $400 million, and also that the technologies required are not proven and too new.

While the study researchers are on the pessimistic side in the near term when it comes to cellulosic fuels they have higher hopes for the post-2022 time frame.

via Fast Company

National Academy of Science says not to expect a lot out of cellulose biofuels for some time is a post from: The Inquisitr

Green energy is a hot topic when it comes to renewable energy and of all the different methods to produce renewable energy geothermal is probably the least well known but the Geothermal Energy Association is looking to change that when in brings together 160 global businesses involved in the industry.

Billed as the Geothermal Energy Expo the convention is being held in San Diego and will provide a unique opportunity for companies to exhibit their projects, equipment, services as well as sharing the state of the art technology as it applies to the geothermal community.

Companies expected to take part include: Siemens, POWER Engineers, Ormat, NALCO, Geothermal Resource Group, Mitsubishi Power Systems and more.

“As our industry continues to proliferate among global markets, more advancements are being made.  The GEA Geothermal Energy Expo will highlight these new and important technical advancements, providing a robust forum for industry buyers and sellers,” said GEA Executive Director Karl Gawell. “We look forward to welcoming geothermal business leaders and exhibitors from around the world for a very hands on, dynamic event.”

via Renewable Energy World

As it stands right now geothermal power supplies approximately 10,715 Megawatts of electricity in 24 countries but the potential for the use of geothermal resources is much more than that. It is believed that with our current technology, and technology in development, that geothermal resources could supply more than 300,000 Megawatts of power and with fewer carbon emissions.

The expo is expected to draw over 3,000 attendees during October 24 and October 26.

The Geothermal Energy Expo to bring 160 energy companies together is a post from: The Inquisitr

For those of you not familiar with the term ‘smart windows’ it is the term used to describe a type of window that uses glass that can darken or lighten according to outside temperatures. Up until now that usually involved the use of toxic substances which resulted in glass windows that were very expensive and didn’t work all that well.

Now we have a new breed of these windows from a team of researchers in South Korea who say that they have overcome those problems and doesn’t use toxic elements.

Scientists Ho Sun Lim, Jeong Ho Cho, Jooyong Kim and Chang Hwan Lee utilized a polyelectrolyte copolymer, ions reacting with counterions (ions that have a charge opposite to that of other given ions, resulting in electrical neutrality), and solvents such as methanol. The result was dimmable glass that was inexpensive and less toxic to manufacture, while offering robust performance. It is also said to change tint quickly, going from being opaque to almost completely clear within seconds.

via GizMag

Still no mention of price so I imagine they are still going to be on the expensive side.

A new breed of ‘smart windows’ are less expensive and toxic is a post from: The Inquisitr

It might look a little funky but I guess not so much if you compare it to a Dyson machine and besides who of your neighbors could brag about having the world’s most efficient vacuum cleaner that uses 43% less energy than any of its competitors; or rather would be competitors.

Called the Stem, this vacuum cleaner prototype is from Cambridge Consultants and as well as using less energy it offers a 27% environmental impact reduction when compared to other vacuum cleaners.

So how did Cambridge cut down on energy and material use? First, the company surveyed the current vacuum market and thought about ways to improve upon often-used technology. The Stem automatically changes power usage depending on what it is doing. When the vacuum is sitting idle for a moment, power usage also declines.

The vacuum cleaner offers the same size, weight, and performance as standard models–but Cambridge rejiggered the layout of internal parts to increase efficiency and airflow.

via Fast Company

I never realized that vacuuming was such an important area of energy efficiency but hey if you are gong to go down that hallway you might as well have something that looks cool.

Introducing the world’s most efficient vacuum cleaner – suck on this Dyson. is a post from: The Inquisitr

Solar energy is considered to many to be the answer to our energy problems but the main stumbling block to more wide spread use has always been the effective collecting of that energy.

Well it seems that one 13-year-old has discovered a rather unique method for collecting solar energy that allows for 50% more energy to be collected and lengthen the time energy can be collected while the sun is up by 50%.

Aidan Dwyer might only be a teenager but he is one smart kid who saw as other naturalists have that tree growth follows a unique mathematical tenet called the Fibonacci Sequence. For those not familiar with what that is here is a very simple explanation. It is a pattern where the previous numbers are added together to make the next number in the sequence i.e.: 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+2=5, 5+3=8, etc.

Aidan to thinking that if trees grew in this manner and were  effective collecting solar energy for their growth why couldn’t we do the same. So he set about and created a “solar tree” using the sequence of leaves like that found on an oak tree, and photovoltaic cells instead of leaves.

From Aidan’s post on the American Museum of Natural History site:

I designed and built my own test model, copying the Fibonacci pattern of an oak tree. I studied my results with the compass tool and figured out the branch angles. The pattern was about 137 degrees and the Fibonacci sequence was 2/5. Then I built a model using this pattern from PVC tubing. In place of leaves, I used PV solar panels hooked up in series that produced up to 1/2 volt, so the peak output of the model was 5 volts. The entire design copied the pattern of an oak tree as closely as possible.

[....]

I compared my results on graphs, and they were interesting! The Fibonacci tree design performed better than the flat-panel model. The tree design made 20% more electricity and collected 2 1/2 more hours of sunlight during the day. But the most interesting results were in December, when the Sun was at its lowest point in the sky. The tree design made 50% more electricity, and the collection time of sunlight was up to 50% longer!

Even though scientists have been studying natures use of solar energy for quite some time there is no denying that the work of this “kid” is pretty impressive.

via Geekosystem

What do the Fibonacci Sequence and solar power have in common? is a post from: The Inquisitr

An ultimately useless (but sort of interesting) statistic was uncovered by intrepid boffins at Scientific American, once they put down their damn game controllers: in total, U.S. videogame consoles consume as much electricity annually as the entire city of San Diego in the same period. Cra-zee.

Furthermore, we’d save half of all that energy if we got off our asses and turned our consoles off, and didn’t leave them switched on to download the latest 4TB demo from Xbox Live Arcade (guilty).

EPRI [Electric Power Research Institute] said if the heaviest gamer plays about six hours a day over a year — a figure found by Nielsen Co. in 2006 — then his Wii would consume 29 kilowatt-hours, his Playstation 178 kWh, and his Xbox 360 184 kWh. A plasma TV, by comparison, averages 242 kWh a year.

That makes gaming a formidable energy user. U.S. homes have about 63 million video game consoles, and together they use about as much energy as San Diego does in a year, according to a 2008 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Much of the energy use isn’t even from playing video games, according to NRDC — it’s from the idling that goes on after the gamer has left the room. The group said idling uses about as much energy as playing.

If gamers turned off their systems when they finished playing, and if manufacturers made systems that turned themselves off when inactive, consumers would save $1 billion a year in utility bills, NRDC said.

Crazier still: all these numbers are excluding the juice slurped up by the required television.

[Scientific American, via Geekologie]

U.S. gamers consume as much electricity yearly as San Diego is a post from: The Inquisitr

Depending on your news source, he was a “provocateur,” “thinker,” “investor,” “author” or possibly most damningly, “Bush advisor,” but the man who penned Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy to warn Earth residents that oil might run out, and like, soon, has died unexpectedly at the age of 67.

Matthew Simmons founded the Ocean Energy Institute in 2007 to explore ways to harness energy via the sea. Simmons’ death from a heart attack in a hot tub at his home in North Haven, Maine, was attributed to a heart attack. Michael Frazier, the CEO of a company founded by Simmons in 1974, expressed sympathy and sadness at his friend’s passing:

“We are deeply saddened by the unexpected loss of a true visionary and friend,” Michael E. Frazier, chief executive officer of Simmons & Co., said today in a statement. “As a pivotal figure in the lives of many of our employees, and countless others across the energy industry, Matt will be sorely missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family during this difficult time.”

Simmons is survived by a wife, Ellen, and his five daughters.

[Image]

Prominent ‘Peak Oil Theory’ advocate Matt Simmons dies suddenly is a post from: The Inquisitr

McKinsey & Company have recently released a new report with a detailed analysis of the potential savings the United States in non-transportation areas.

Research has found that if the annual non-transportation consumption was reduced 23% by 2020 we could see a saving of $1.2 trillion on an investment of the $520 billion that would be required upfront. In addition this reduction in energy usage could see the equivalent of the entire US fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the road which works out to 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions.

The report also outlines five observations on how to best to pursue energy efficiency that would meet the range outlined in the report.

Recognize energy efficiency as an important energy resource that can help meet future energy needs while the nation concurrently develops new no- and low-carbon energy sources

Formulate and launch at both national and regional levels an integrated portfolio of proven, piloted, and emerging approaches to unlock the full potential of energy efficiency

Identify methods to provide the significant upfront funding required by any plan to capture energy efficiency

Forge greater alignment between utilities, regulators, government agencies, manufacturers, and energy consumers

Foster innovation in the development and deployment of next-generation energy efficiency technologies to ensure ongoing productivity gains

Source: McKinsey & Company :: Unlocking energy efficiency in the U.S. economy

Of course we all know that as it might be nice to see this kind of savings we’ll never see it happen within the timeframe given in the report.

Better energy use could save US $1.2 trillion is a post from: The Inquisitr

The common wisdom these days is that the Internet and Web, as well as technology in general, will continue on a forward momentum. It will constantly add to our collective knowledge and increase our achievements as it grows. Things like Moore’s Law and Ray Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerated Return would have us believe that our future of incredible technology is within our grasp. After all there is no indication that it is otherwise.

Or is there?

I like to consider myself a realist when it comes to technology and society. I would like to think that there are incredible things ahead for us as we make discovery after discovery. I also believe, unlike a lot of my equals, that as much good as all this new technology will bring society there are those who will subvert the future to their own advantages. That doesn’t change the fact that I don’t hope for a bright future. In fact I hope to always be proven wrong and that we live to see the benefits of a universally equal society as it is helped by our constantly growing technological knowledge.

What if I am wrong?

We live in a world where the Internet and by extension the Web is an increasingly integral part of our society. We might bicker about things like ubiquitous access for all and worry about things like search monopolies, but we would like to believe that as we move to the future we will overcome those problems. We like to believe in a technologically driven world where things like health and other problems which plague us today will no longer exist. Things like oil and coal shortages would be a thing of the past and we would live without fear of the planet imploding from our mere presence.

What if this isn’t the future we end up with?

While the majority of forward thinkers and technologists might dismiss these question as being not something we need to be asking ourselves there are some whole think otherwise. I ran across the writings of one of these types of persons earlier today via a post on Treehugger. John Michael Greer is the author of the Archdruid Report and two of his most recent posts directly look to these types of questions.

The End of the Information Age

In the first post I read titled The End of the Information Age he suggests that rather than heading into a technological Golden Age we are in fact headed in the opposite direction. Much of his argument in the post is based around the point that our technological world is being powered by an increasingly limited supply of energy.

This kind of logic is common enough these days that it’s probably necessary to point out the flaws in it. Electricity isn’t an energy source; it has to be generated, using some other energy source to do so. The electricity that powers the European and Japanese rail systems is mostly generated by plants that burn coal, with significant help from nuclear reactors and a rather smaller assist from hydroelectric plants. Of these, only the hydroelectric plants are a renewable energy source; the others are poised just as firmly on the downslope of depletion as the diesel oil that runs American locomotives.

His point being that our principal forms of creating long term supplies of energy are in fact finite. I realize that this is the point where a vocal group of environmentally minded people will jump up and start waving the banners of solar, wind and wave generated power. Once more we tread into the realm of possible futures but the reality is more likely that these forms of energy generation are going to have a lot harder time gaining a foothold than they think.

As I pointed out in a previous post here we are only just entering into the fields of generating alternative forms of energy. We are barely getting our toes wet in this new world and already see the flag of NIMBY being waved in the communities that, as much as they need these new forms of energy  they don’t want its transport systems going through their neighborhoods.

Now I talked about this whole thing with a good friend of mine, Mark “Rizzn” Hopkins, via IM and he raised the point that Greer was forgetting things like Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerated Return. It was his point that even now stuff like nano-tech solar technology is only about five years from hitting the market in any great degree. For Mark it is things like this that will allow increasing amounts of solar energy to be generated on a smaller more local scale

Well, take into account urban solar initiatives as well as nano-tech – solar is currently poised for a quantum leap forward.

We’re about five years out from affordable solar accessible to everyone.

Having read Ray Kurzweil’s book The Singularity is Near I can understand the point that Mark is making. Technology isn’t a linear growth, it is in fact an exponential growth that builds on top of what we already know and have. While I may not be in total agreement with what John Greer is trying to say in this first post I also think that people like Kurzweil, and Mark, forget about a major contributing factor in all human growth.

Human Nature

As much as we might like to believe that all human beings are good and want to do the right things for our world and our society that isn’t the case. We live in a world where money and power are the major driving force. Those in power will always do the bare minimum to keep the maximum number of people happy. Beyond that it is all about garnering as much power and money as possible. Corporations have equal or more power than the governments we elect to [supposedly] govern us.

We have seen time and again throughout our history where any serious change in our society has been brought in only through kicking and screaming. Governments and business do not want to change anything that will affect their long term power and profit margins. At the heart of this is our current situation of an inevitable decline of fossil based source of energy and the constant bickering over moving to more renewable sources of energy. On the smaller scale we have even within our own neighborhoods and communities those that will do whatever they can to stop change because it might affect their short term bottom lines.

The Cost of Our Information Age

When it comes to the bottom line in our technological world we all want as much access with a little interference as possible for a little cost as possible. For many people, myself included, this is a perquisite for any attempt to move ourselves into a true technological future. However all this access costs us a lot of energy. We tend to loose sight of this cost when we look on the small scale of our own personal usage of technology. It is a totally different story when start approaching the bedrock of that technology.

Very few people realize just how extravagant the intake of resources to maintain the information economy actually is. The energy cost to run a home computer is modest enough that it’s easy to forget, for example, that the two big server farms that keep Yahoo’s family of web services online use more electricity between them than all the televisions on Earth put together. Multiply that out by the tens of thousands of server farms that keep today’s online economy going, and the hundreds of other energy-intensive activities that go into the internet, and it may start to become clear how much energy goes into putting these words onto the screen where you’re reading them.

At some point we are going to reach a convergence of the need for more cheap energy and the reality that we’ve been playing NIMBY far too long. There will come a point, if what Mark suggests about things like nano-solar doesn’t happen, that energy cost could become the most crucial deciding factor in who – if anyone other than Government and Business, has access to technology.

The Economics of Decline

We could actually arrive at a point where those things like libraries, newspapers and shopping in our neighborhoods become more economically viable because of an increasing cost of technology due to our delay, or inability, in moving to a more sustainable energy production. John Greer talked about this in his second post I read titled The Economics of Decline

All this is true, but it misses the central issue I’ve tried to raise in the last few posts – the impact of energy and resource scarcity on the relative costs and benefits of different technologies – and it also dismisses the even broader issue of whether such energy-intensive technologies are sustainable at all in the future ahead of us. It’s a dizzying departure from reason to insist that the advantages conferred by the internet mean that the internet must continue to exist. The fact that something is an advantage does not guarantee that it is possible.

Our Internet, and all our other technological toys we wouldn’t want to be without, do in fact eat up huge amounts of energy. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft along with a host of other technology companies are spending millions of dollars a year trying to find ways to lower their energy consumption. It is a good effort that has already shown promise but they are fighting against an ever growing tide of new technology coming online everyday.

The Growing Energy Cost of the Infrastructure

For as much as technology like the Internet, computers and other modern toys, may have a direct cost energy wise we have to also take into consideration the energy cost of the infrastructure to maintain and grow our technologies. As Greer puts it in his post

It’s crucial to remember that the entire supply chain that keeps the internet and its potential competitors running has to be factored into these calculations. It’s easy to see the internet as uniquely efficient if all you take into account is the energy going into your home computer, or even if you consider the gigawatts used by server farms. Putting those gigawatts to work, however, requires an electrical grid spanning most of a continent, backed up by the immense inputs of coal and natural gas burnt to put electricity into the wires, and a network of supply chains that stretches from coal mines to power plants to the oil wells that provide diesel fuel for trains and excavation machines; the server farms draw on a vast array of supporting services and manufactures, from the overseas mines that produce rare earths for semiconductor doping through the factories that turn out components to the colleges that turn out trained technicians, and the list goes on.

To try and just center our attention on the direct energy cost of technology is myopic and potentially irresponsible. We need to understand that the energy cost of maintaining the world we know and the one we want is going to be immense. As much as our current online experience might like us to believe that the things we want in life can be had at no or extremely little cost the real world shows us otherwise.

The Cost of Living Off of Abundance

Our society for its entirety has lived much a a parasite on this planet. We have placed ourselves above everything else on the planet to the point that we are sucking it dry of its lifeblood. We have no concern for any consequences until we are backing to the proverbial corner. As Mark pointed out though in IM when we talked about this

throughout history, just at the precipice of collapse, humanity figures out a way to continue the growth curve.

He is right.

We have always seemed to pull our asses out of the fire when any bookie in Vegas would have laughed at the odds. Unlike the past though we are reaching a point where the cost of our greed, ignorance and collective self-importance may have exacted too high of a price. While ordinary people fly their NIMBY flags to make sure their corner of the doesn’t change Corporations do everything in their power to maintain the status quo. They have made an art form out of the practice of Avoidance of Cause and Effect.

I am not saying that everything that Greer puts forward in his writing is something that will come to pass. I do believe though that as long as we keep playing the the game of diminishing energy we are in danger of losing any truly good changes that technology could bring to our society. As much as I might like to believe that Kurzweil’s hypothesis might save our asses I also realize that human nature still has a very large part to play in this and that most definitely gives me pause.

Thoughts anyone?

Are we headed to an Internet Dark Ages? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Last year the world spent $80 billion (USD) on electricity to power all the gadgets we can’t seem to do without anymore. This poser demand has increased due to the rise in computers, MP3 players, home video games, wireless routers, portable phones and those hot flat screen, high definition digital televisions. It is so bad that the estimate is that by 2030 the expenditure on electricity will grow to $200 billion (USD).

It is believed that to meet these demands will require the output of 200 new power plants and will double greenhouse emissions to on billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. This has prompted a move by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to start urging governments around the world to create new, lower, energy efficiency standards. The idea being to force manufacturers to include extra-low power modes for when our gadgets aren’t in use as well as improve the overall operating efficiency of those electronic gadgets.

Paul Waide, a senior policy adviser at the agency, says the digital revolution is transforming home electronics into ubiquitous, multi-purpose appliances. Some refrigerators now come with televisions in the door, while TVs are now high-definition computer monitors that can also be used to listen to radio.

He said consumers should shut down their gadgets when not in use and unplug when not in use the growing number of battery chargers needed for cordless phones, cellphones, iPods and laptops.

And they should listen to radio on an actual radio, rather than an energy-hogging television or computer.

At the same time, many jurisdictions are moving to digital-only television, which consumes far more power than the traditional analogue sets.

The IEA estimates the electricity demand for television usage will rise by 5 per cent a year.

Source: The Globe and Mail

Technology to take power usage through the roof is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you are someone who is heavy into environmental and energy issues this offering from Reegle might just be up your alley. while they might like to bill themselves as a search engine for renewable energy that really are a lot more than just that. along with aggregating energy news it has a great map section that lets you keep up with renewable energy projects around the world.

When you click on any of the icons that populate the map you will be shown the latest news links regarding renewable energy for that country. You can also click other search parameters and see upcoming events around the world that have to do with renewable energy and climate protection. Yet another selection will get you a list of links for the country’s energy profile from a wide variety of sources.

Sustainable energy visual search is a post from: The Inquisitr

It’s all about saving as much energy you can whether it be in our homes or our workplaces. For those interested in those kinds of things the EPA has just released it’s Top 10 list of U.S. cities with the most number of Energy Star rated commercial buildings. They also noted in their release that the number of buildings has jumped over 2007 by 130%. As well the buildings use 35% less energy and emit 35% less CO2.

So do you have any bragging rights over your working buds? Check the list to find out

1. Los Angeles
2. San Francisco
3. Houston
4. Washington DC
5. Dallas-Fort Worth
6. Chicago
7. Denver
8. Minneapolis-St Paul
9. Atlanta
10. Seattle

Source: Energy Star

Just a parting note – for a building qualify for an energy star rating it mus score in the top 25% using the EPA’s National Energy Performance Rating System.

Number of commercial Energy Star rated buildings up 130% is a post from: The Inquisitr

As the Internet grows and more and more people are using it to watch videos or play their music and store their data it is inevitable that its overall energy usage would also climb. With numbers like 3.2 million people climbed on board the Internet train between 2000 and 2006 its not surprising to hear that its energy usage doubled.

That might sound like a lot but when you stop to think about it that doubling of energy usage is more of testament of a growing energy consciousness in the companies that manufacture the equipment used to power the Internet. Katie Fehrenbacher over at earth2tech.com pointed this out today in a post

But take a closer look at the numbers and we can see the Internet is actually getting more energy efficient. According to data from Jonathan Koomey, scientist with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, while Internet energy use doubled from 2000 to 2006, Internet traffic has far more than doubled during that period, and has ramped up by a factor of 20 to the 5th (or 3.2 million). The reason for the discrepancy is because network technologies have gotten consistently more energy efficient per unit of data transferred over the Internet.

She also pointed out that Cisco has been trying to make its hardware more energy efficient for some time. In that effort Cisco is one of the first companies to have its switches labelled as Certified Green by the consultancy firm Miercom. One has to wonder though as we move closer to the huge data centers meant to power the Internet cloud whether that energy/user ratio will stay the same.

The Internet is using more power but doing it better is a post from: The Inquisitr

And here everyone thought that gamers are nothing but a bunch of couch potatoes. Well maybe they are but those consoles they are using to play all the hottest games are chewing through a shitload of energy. Between the Wii, the PS3 and the Xbox 360 you gamers are using enough power to keep a city the size of San Diego running.

According to a just completed study done by the Natural Resources Defence council and Ecos Consulting (pdf report) approximately 16 billion kilowatt-hours is consumed by gaming consoles. The average Xbox consumes about 119 watts in active mode, the PS3 averages out to 150 watts and the Wii with its less pull on graphics rates only 16 watts in active mode.

Now the NRDC does say that by actually using the power down options that are available on all the consoles – but are disabled by default DUH! – that if combined with better power saving measures could save 11 billion kilowatt-hours per year. In real money that would come out to about $1 Billion saved annually.

So remember you gamers out there in this new green world – Power Down when you’ve finished blowing up the world.

[hat tip to EcoGeek]

Gamers are energy pigs is a post from: The Inquisitr