LivingGreen

The Obama administration has identified 17 sites on public lands across six Southwestern states that officials say are most suitable for utility-scale solar projects. In a report, federal officials vowed to expedite applications for solar projects on these sites - located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah - which were targeted because of access to existing or planned transmission lines, minimal resource conflicts, existing development incentives, and solar potential. The sites,covering a total of 285,000 acres, have the potential to produce nearly 5,900 megawatts of energy, enough to power 1.8 million homes, according to the U.S. Interior Department. While the government also created a process for quicker approval of "well-sited projects" on another 19 million acres outside these zones, the plan excluded more than 78 million acres of public land from solar development.

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

The first commercial tidal energy project in the US was dedicated last week in Maine, and turbines will begin turning in mid-September.

It's the first grid-tied tidal project in the US and the first to sell the electricity through long term power purchase agreements.

Portland, Maine-based Ocean Renewable Power Co. will soon lower a generator to the sea floor as part of a network of 20 underwater turbines.

"Tidal energy has arrived in America and it just landed right here," says Chris Sauer, Ocean Renewable's CEO to about 200 people gathered at the ceremony.

The small project in Eastport, Maine will provide electricity for 1,200 homes.

The cost is about $21 million for the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project, which includes research and development, design, manufacture and installation of the turbines and environmental monitoring.

Cobscook Bay is one of the world's top tidal sites, where the tide rises and falls 20 feet twice each day.

Earlier this year, Maine regulators directed three utilities to buy 4 megawatts (MW) of tidal electricity in a 20-year contract. The utilities will pay almost double the average electricity price in Maine to support the project.

Regulators looked at what the cost of fossil fuels would be over 20 years and decided they would likely be even higher. In fact, they see tidal energy being cost-competitive in as little as five years.

The International Energy Agency's International Vision for Ocean Energy sets a goal for the technology to be cost-competitive by 2020.

The Department of Energy (DOE) invested $10 million in the this pilot phase of the project, which will supply electricity to 100 homes. It's already injected $14 million in the local economy and supported over 100 jobs. DOE invested as part of its investment in ocean energy research.

The fully completed project will power about 1200 homes and businesses.

"The Eastport tidal energy project represents a critical investment to ensure America leads in this fast-growing global industry, helping to create new manufacturing, construction, and operation jobs across the country while diversifying our energy portfolio and reducing pollution," says Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

DOE's early investment was critical in bringing Ocean Energy's tidal energy device from the lab to commercial deployment. The devices and many of its components are being manufactured in the US.

Earlier this year, DOE released a nationwide tidal energy resource assessment, identifying large areas along the East Coast, Hawaii and Alaska that have potential.

The other tidal project moving forward is Verdant Power's in New York City's East River. Siemens invested in a tidal company and the world's largest tidal project is moving ahead in Scotland, a 10 MW plant.

Learn more about the project and Ocean Renewables:

Website: www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23643

Image by ORPC

Reprinted with permission from SustainableBusiness.com

Recent policies enacted by the Brazilian government - including changes to its Forest Code and a push to build 30 new dams in the Amazon region - threaten to undermine critical environmental progress made by the nation over the last two decades, scientists say. In a declaration published after its annual meeting in Bonito, Brazil, the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation (ATBC) stated that government policies to reduce deforestation and protect indigenous lands had made Brazil a global conservation model over the last two decades. "But recent developments raise concerns," said John Kress, a botanist at the Smithsonian Institution who is executive director of the ATBC. The group cited recent changes to Brazil's forest protection laws that they say favor agribusiness and will likely increase deforestation in the Amazon, as well as numerous large-scale dam projects that will interfere with critical fish migration routes and flood vast areas of rainforest and indigenous communities. The ATBC meeting was held concurrently with the Rio+20 Earth Summit, which was criticized for producing an agreement that lacked any specific commitments or goals for sustainable economic development.

Photo by Jose Roberto V Moraes/flickr/Creative Commons

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

by Andrew Meggison

While hopes for a high-speed rail line connecting California cities seem to be on life support, New England could be the new home of a high-speed rail line. Even though Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) faces a $161 million budget deficit this year and another $100 million budget deficit next year, this project is getting more attention and support.

Amid the financial chaos of the MBTA, some people in Massachusetts (MA) still want rail expansion, and high-speed rail at that. Three public meetings have been held on the issue and it seems that the people want it. The high speed rail would run from New Haven, CT, stop along the way to Hartford, and then make local stops all the way to Springfield, MA.

The high-speed rail project would increase the number of daily trains between New Haven CT and Hartford CT from 6 trains to 17 trains with the goal of running 25 trains each day along a 62 mile route. The 62 mile corridor between New Haven and Springfieldis owned and operated by The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).

If the high speed rail project gets approval later phases of the project would include new stations in North Haven, Newington, West Hartford and Enfield. Eventually, the high-speed rail line would encompass stops across all

America is behind most other first world nations in the high speed rail department. Arguably, the major efforts to get a high speed rail system in place in the US have been focused on California and the Central Valley project, despite a serious lack of money and an established ridership. Supporters of a high-speed rail system in California claim that the project will immediately create thousands of jobs and spur growth in businesses that directly and indirectly support the project, while those against the project ask how can we, as an economically bankrupt state, undertake a project like this in the current economy?

The fiscal strength of the New England states, however, is much stronger than than that of California, which faces a $16 billion budget deficit. As I already mentioned, the MBTA is facing a serious budget shortfall, though Connecticut recently closed its own budget deficit. Congress also recently approved the Northern New England corridor as one that could eventually support high-speed rail all the way from Boston to Montreal, Canada.

Furthermore, the New England corridor is the only one with an established, and profitable ridership. Record ridership levels have been recorded as gas prices go up, with public transit use across America rising to levels not seen since 1957. With multiple states and countries working on this high-speed rail project together, it might stand a better chance of coming to fruition that California's bungled and expensive plans.

Andrew Meggison was born in the state of Maine and educated in Massachusetts. Andrew earned a Bachelor's Degree in Government and International Relations from Clark University and a Master's Degree in Political Science from Northeastern University. Being an Eagle Scout, Andrew has a passion for all things environmental. In his free time Andrew enjoys writing, exploring the great outdoors, a good film, and a creative cocktail. You can follow Andrew on Twitter @AndrewMeggison

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

by Glenn Meyers

GE has announced that Swedish energy developer Triventus Wind Power AB will use GE wind turbine technology to power a planned 27.5-megawatt wind farm project to be built near Falkenberg on Sweden's west coast.

Through the agreement, GE will deliver 10 2.75-103 wind turbines to Triventus. When operations begin, the wind farm will generate enough renewable electricity to power the equivalent of 7,500. It will also provide ongoing maintenance via a five-year service agreement.

In a press announcement, GE and Triventus officials indicated the Triventus project is being supported through the country's green certificate support system. This is similar to how other Swedish wind farms are supported.

Currently, nuclear power plants and hydroelectric facilities produce most of Sweden's domestic energy. But in order to comply with the European Union's Renewables Directive, the country has been expanding its wind farm installations, states the Swedish Wind Energy Association.

"Given Sweden's need to expand the role of wind energy, GE's wind turbine technology has a proven track record of reliability and efficiency to ensure our project is successfully implemented on schedule," said Linda Palsson, MD of Triventus Wind Power.

GE Energy will deliver its wind turbines to the project site during the first and second quarters of 2013. The wind farm is scheduled to begin commercial service in the second quarter of 2013.

The Triventus project is located close to two other wind farms that also are also powered by GE wind turbines.

In its press announcement, Stephan Ritter, GE's general manager for renewable energy in Europe, said, "With the 2.75 turbine, Triventus is investing into a technology that is built on the proven 2.5 platform. The solid design of this platform ensures high availability rates and with that supports the country's renewables targets in the long run."

GE can add the Triventus project to its growing list of wind projects in Sweden. In 2011, GE announced that Stena Renewable Wind Energy Company would deploy 40 of GE's 2.5-100 units for four new wind farms in the southern Swedish municipalities of Laholm Boxholm and Mjolby. Also, GE and Goteborg Energi began installing a 4.1-113 offshore turbine in the Gothenburg harbor in Risholmsvagen in 2011.

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechnica

by Wendy Gordon

I was in Colombia, S.A. recently, and got the chance to visit a sugar factory. No, shake off the image of Johnny Depp and Charlie's chocolate factory, though there were similarities, mostly in how excited I was to be there. I love factories, you see, but there were no bon bons being made here.

Indeed, at the open-air Ingenio Providencia, S.A. plant, the giant mills were noisily pulverizing the cane from the surrounding emerald green fields of the Cauca Valley to make the raw organic sugar that Colombians stir into their most famous crop, coffee, and yes, bakers whip up into cakes, cookies and other sweet treats.

Many Products From One Sugar Crop

But sugar wasn't all they made at Providencia. This one plant produced four other products, including ethanol, bagasse (a renewable energy source that has reduced the country's coal use), pulp for paper, and CO2 (used to carbonate drinks).

Another useful sub-product of the ethanol process is vinasse, a significant portion of which is sent to the compost plant to produce an organic fertilizer. Vinasse is very rich in potassium which is the nutrient absorbed in large quantities by the sugarcane in its vegetative crop cycle.

I was fascinated by the entire set of products, and how ultra-efficient the whole system is -- virtually nothing was wasted. But my real aim was to compare sugar to corn - whether one was better or worse for your health and which made a better fuel for cars and trucks. Back in the U.S., corn grows better than sugar, and so our ethanol is largely made from corn. We also use corn to make High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), the cheap sweetener now found in most junk food, sodas in particular.

Corn Sugar, Corn Fuel: Bad For You, Bad For The Climate

Neither table sugar nor HFCS is good for you. Both contain fructose which is taken up almost exclusively by the liver where it can be re-packaged as fat and produces harmful by-products in the process. Excess consumption of fructose has been linked to gout, hypertension, dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, diabetes, and obesity. HFCS or "corn sugar," as the U.S. Corn Association likes to call it, has more fructose than table sugar, sometimes lots more, making it worse for one's health particularly if one consumes too much of it.

Sure, fresh fruit is packed with fructose too, but in its raw-fruit-form, fructose is encased in a fiber-rich flesh that slows and reduces its absorption in the body and its metabolism in the liver, serving as a sort of antidote to the negative effects of HFCS/sugar metabolism.

Turning now to fuels, corn-based ethanol is not much better than "junk fuel" when compared to sugar ethanol. "Corn ethanol is extremely dirty," Michal Rosenoer of Friends of the Earth told Rob Lever of Phys.org after the US Congress allowed a subsidy for ethanol fuel to expire at the end of 2011, ending a program harshly criticized by environmentalists and others.

"It leads to more climate pollution than conventional gasoline, and it causes deforestation as well as agricultural runoff that pollutes our water."

Cane Ethanol: Better For The Climate

Sugar ethanol in comparison has an energy balance -- a measure of the energy created relative to the energy consumed to produce it -- that's six times more efficient than corn ethanol. For corn, the average output/input ratio is 1.5:1, for sugar cane it's 9:1. And in Colombia, where our guide told us they "have the highest sugar cane crop yield in the world," the ratio is 11:1. Consequently, he went on, "we have the highest standard in reducing green house gases compared even to Brazil," the world's second largest ethanol producer (all from sugar cane) and the world's largest exporter.

Though the $6 billion in annual ethanol subsidies have ended, a win for American taxpayers and consumers, the industry continues to get support from government mandates under a law known as the Renewable Fuel Standards Act, which requires 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in 2012, and increases that to more than 20 billion by 2022. The pressure is on, a spokesperson for the Renewable Fuels Association told Phys.org, for ethanol producers to diversify beyond corn and develop biofuels from agricultural waste, algae and other "cellulosic" sources that are seen as more environmentally sustainable.

Skeptics caution that even these alternatives will require an enormous amount of land, and crops produced on a large scale will require chemical or water inputs. There is no "single solution" on fuels.

Getting Superefficient Sugar Ethanol To The U.S.

Which brings me back to the Providencia plant where I was beginning to covet Colombia's super-efficient sugar ethanol. "Might your sugar ethanol be something the U.S. could import?" I asked the guide. "At this point in time" he said, "there is no surplus that enables us to export to other countries."

He explained that Colombia requires that all its gasoline must be blended with 8 percent cane sugar ethanol in order to reduce green house gas emissions, improve the rural economy, improve air quality in large cities and most important replace fossil fuel with renewable energy sources.

"All the ethanol we produce is used here." he said, adding that "with the recent signing of the Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and USA, establishing no duties for Colombian ethanol to enter the USA market, this could be an opportunity in the future when Colombia increases its ethanol production."

So I went from coveting to musing: Since we already have a biofuels mandate in the U.S., maybe what we need is to set a minimum standard for the energy output/input ratio, or at least a minimum average. That way, we'll know that when we fill up our flex-fuel cars, the fuel is better for the environment than straight gasoline.

In my tea, I usually add a little local honey, to my coffee a teaspoon of sugar, organic preferably. My guide at the plant told me that there are now three types of sugar from Providencia sold in New York, Florida and Atlanta -- Incauca Organic Sugar, Incauca Organic Brown Demerara Sugar, and Incauca Organic Light Sugar.

I've not seen any yet but when I do I'll buy some, assured that it was responsibly produced and processed, and in small doses, offers a sweet treat. And maybe someday, there will be a little Cauca Valley sugar for my car.

Reprinted with permission from CSRwire

by Philip Warburg

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has been outspoken in deriding President Obama's efforts to give wind and solar power the prominence they deserve on America's energy agenda. "In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy," he wrote in a March editorial in Columbus Dispatch.

Wind Provides Significant Portion of U.S. Power

It's hard to square candidate Romney's muscular assertions with current reality, where wind power has provided 35 percent of all new U.S. power production over the past half-decade and already accounts for 10 percent or more of the electricity generated in five U.S. states. In South Dakota, 22 percent of power generation comes from wind; Iowa produces 19 percent of its electricity from wind. Even big-oil Texas taps the wind for 8.5 percent of the electricity controlled by the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which accounts for 85 percent of the state's electricity. And it's worth noting that Texas consumes considerably more electric power than any other state in the Union - nearly twice as much as California.

Republican Presidents Led The Way On Wind Power

Wind power is not simply a fantasy perpetrated by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, as Romney would like American voters to believe. After all, it was George W. Bush who, as Texas governor, introduced the Lone Star State's first renewable portfolio standard, setting ambitious targets for the introduction of wind power and other renewable energy sources - goals that the state has since far surpassed.

And it was President George W. Bush whose Department of Energy (DOE) published a landmark report in July 2008, mapping out a pathway to achieving a fifth of America's power from wind by 2030.

In charting a course toward 20 percent reliance on wind by 2030, the DOE did not flatline U.S. electricity use between now and then. To the contrary, it assumed a 39 percent increase above total consumption in 2005. If we actually became a nation that valued energy conservation more than we do today, the three hundred gigawatts of installed wind power slated for 2030 could end up providing well over 20 percent of the nation's power needs.

Wind Power Boosts Employment

Under the 20 percent Wind Energy by 2030 scenario, manufacturing jobs directly related to producing wind turbine components and subcomponents would top 30,000 by 2021, peaking at 32,835 in 2028. While factory work would somewhat slacken thereafter, ongoing expansion in onshore and offshore wind-generating capacity as well as the need to repower aging wind plants would guarantee a continued high level of employment in the manufacturing sector.

In construction, jobs would average over 70,000 a year from 2019 through 2030.

And in wind farm operations, total jobs would reach 76,667 by 2030 - about 28,000 in on-site operations and another 48,000 in utility services and subcontractors.

Adding them all up, DOE foresees about 180,000 new jobs per year directly linked to wind energy as the 2030 target date approaches.

Wind Power's Multiplier Effect: Direct & Induced Jobs

Beyond all of the "direct" jobs in the wind energy economy, DOE also explores the "indirect" employment benefits of growing this sector. These jobs include the producers and suppliers of steel, fiberglass, and other materials that are used to build wind turbines; the companies that manufacture the parts that go into a typical turbine's 8,000 components and subcomponents; and the providers of banking, accounting, legal, and other services to wind turbine manufacturers and wind farm contractors.

These indirect jobs are expected to number about a hundred thousand annually in the years leading up to the 2030 target date.

Finally, DOE draws an even wider circle around the "induced" job impacts resulting from consumer spending by people directly and indirectly employed in the wind energy sector. A wind turbine factory worker buys a new pair of jeans in a local store; a wind farm technician takes her family out to dinner; a crane operator stays at a local motel. The DOE team attributes another 200,000 jobs per year to these induced economic activities [Specific numerical projections underlying DOE's data were provided by Suzanne Tegen, Ph.D. and Senior Energy Analyst at the Strategic Energy Analysis Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory].

Folding induced jobs into the assessment of wind energy benefits may go farther down the speculative road than some are ready to travel. But even setting that outer circle of employment impacts aside, we are looking at a roster that rises to more than a quarter-of-a-million direct and indirect jobs if we pursue the DOE's 20 percent by 2030 ambition.

Congress Could End Wind Tax Credit, Destroying Good Domestic Jobs

Today about 75,000 Americans are employed directly by the wind industry, though analysts warn that, if Congress allows the federal production tax credit for new wind farms to lapse at the end of this year, we will lose about 37,000 of those jobs. The production tax credit, providing 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour of wind-generated power, is costing us far less than the $4 billion-a-year that President Obama proposed cutting earlier this year from the enormous, decades-old subsidies for oil and gas. Because Congress blocked the President's long-overdue proposal, the traditional fossil fuel subsidies remain untouched, along with massive ongoing federal support for the nuclear power industry.

A technology commitment that advances America's energy independence and reduces our nation's carbon footprint while creating hundreds of thousands of new, skill-based jobs - isn't this a path worth taking?

Parts of this article are adapted from Harvest the Wind, with permission of Beacon Press. Philip Warburg. Contact the author at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or visit his website.

Reprinted with permission from CSRwire

by Chris Keenan

If you have acne, whether chronic or occasional, it may seem like there's nothing out there to safely help. Acne is often treated with harsh or even toxic medications that do your body no favors. They certainly don't take into account that many acne cases involve lifestyle factors such as diet. Fortunately, there are natural ways to effectively treat acne without harming your body or your wallet.

These four natural remedies may surprise you with their simplicity, but they've got science behind them; these are acne treatments that work. They're also good for your overall health.

Clear Up Your Diet

Science has validated what many of us had already observed: diet can trigger acne. According to the Mayo Clinic, eating dairy foods and carbohydrates can cause a flare-up. The culprit seems to be the rise in blood sugar from eating foods made with refined flour. This is yet another reason to favor healthy vegetables, fruits and whole grains over packaged muffins.

If you eat dairy, try cutting back or replacing regular yogurt with Greek yogurt. Plain Greek yogurt has about twice the protein and half the sugar of regular plain yogurt. Also, eat a little fat with your dairy to slow down absorption and keep blood sugar from spiking.

The good news? Oily foods and chocolate don't trigger acne, so enjoy getting some of your antioxidants from dark chocolate.

Boost Your Vitamin A

Even a mild vitamin A deficiency can cause acne. Healthy levels actually help prevent acne by reducing sebum production and strengthening your skin's connective tissues. Eat sweet potatoes, carrots, and spinach to boost your levels. Avoid a supplement, as vitamin A is fat soluble and can be toxic in high amounts. A good multivitamin combined with eating the right foods should be plenty.

Eat The Right Minerals

Our modern food supply is depleted in the minerals that our bodies depend on. Low levels of zinc and chromium can actually cause acne. Zinc has antibacterial properties than can help regulate your skin's oil production and prevent inflammation. Foods rich in zinc include sesame seeds and tahini, lean beef, oysters, and nuts. Chromium fights skin infections. Food sources include whole grains, broccoli, and fish. You can also try a daily chromium supplement.

Release Your Stress

The skin is the largest organ in the body and the ultimate shield protecting you from environmental dangers. Your skin also reacts to inner changes and can literally erupt when you're bottling up stress. Work out your tension in positive ways and you're less likely to find your feelings showing up on your skin. Get regular exercise, whether it's running marathons or winding down with yoga. For maximum mind-body benefits, practice regular meditation as well.

Protect Your Face

Your skin's dirt and oil are trapped on everyday objects that it touches. Change your pillow cases every other day to keep your face free of nightly buildup. Keep your hair back from your face and wash it often, especially after sweating. Choose sunscreens and other skin products that say "noncomedogenic" on the label, meaning they don't block pores and are safe for sensitive skin.

If you spend a lot of time outdoors, wear a broad-brimmed hat to block the sun's rays. Too much sun can make acne worse. Over-the-counter acne medications can also make some people more sensitive to the sun, rendering sunscreen less effective. Your best bet is a hat made for sun protection. They're now widely available and come in a range of styles for the whole family.