In fact, more than 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides are used in the US and many different studies are showing that they are present in the human body, MANY human bodies. One pesticide, chlorpyrifos (CPF), was found in 82% of urine samples from a broad range of Americans aged twenty to fifty-nine. And this is not restricted to the homeland. In a Canadian study, the herbicide 2, 4-D, was found in 50% of men, and this in their semen. Do you realize that semen carries the genetic material of a possible fetus or child? How does that affect the developing brains and bodies of those babies and.. what kind of child will it produce? Another child with ADHD or, more significantly, with damaged genetic code that will doom it to a life of serious illness? This is scary stuff.

There are 900 pesticides and herbicides registered with the Environmental Protection Agency. Research into the long-term effects of pesticides has hardly been done. But here are some facts from that research that has been done:

Children who are exposed to organophosphates may have an increased risk of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), according to a study published in the journal, Pediatrics. These widely-used insect killers work by disrupting the brain and nervous system and are known to be toxic to humans. This compound is present in 37 of the 900 different pesticides that are out there. The objective of the study was to examine the association between urinary concentrations of dialkyl phosphate metabolites of organophosphates and ADHD in children 8 to 15 years-old.

There are many unusual instances of Parkinsons’ Disease, among those who are young, female and do not have genetic history. Among these patients, there has developed a movement exploring a possible connection between exposure to environmental toxins, in particular, the organophosphate pesticides and Parkinson’s disease. But a link between environmental neurotoxins and Parkinson’s is difficult to prove. Population studies can detect associations between certain suspected agents and diseases such as cancer, but it’s hard to draw conclusions about what causes a disease from studies that can register only correlations. In the case of Parkinson’s and the environment, however, there has been a steadily mounting consensus about such a connection and serious investigators have found that there was “limited suggestive evidence of an association” between pesticides and Parkinson’s, and between farming or agricultural work and Parkinson’s.

This is complemented by the publication of “Environmental Threats to Healthy Aging”, a report co-authored by the Science and Environmental Health Network, (SEHN). This report included a summary of 31 population studies that have looked at the possible connection between pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s. As many as 24 of these studies, according to the report, found a positive association, and in 12 cases the association was statistically significant. In some studies, the group found, there was as much as a sevenfold greater risk of Parkinson’s in people exposed to pesticides.

And in addition to this, in April 2009, scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), published a provocative study connecting the disease not only to occupational pesticide exposure but also to living in homes or going to schools that were close to a pesticide-treated field.

Overall, there is a lot to think about when it comes to pesticides. They are no doubt in our food and in our water. I can give you a list of foods to avoid but there is nothing we can do about the water. That is the really scary thing. You can buy pesticide free foods but if you boil them in pesticide laden water, it recreates the same situation. If you drink pesticide laden water along with your organic meal, the same threat remains. And the presence of pesticides in the water is a given. Consider this. More than 12,000 wells that provide water to 100 million people have been found to have arsenic or lead concentrations above the health based limits established by the U.S.EPA. Arsenic has been used on crops in the U.S. since 1867 and lead-arsenic since 1890. Arsenic is still widely used today on turf crops, corn, soy, and cotton as an herbicide or defoliant. Now, would you swallow a spoonful of arsenic willingly? Of course not. This is flat out a violation of your sovereignty as an individual and an abuse of your civilian rights. They are force feeding us arsenic.

Although we don’t have any idea how much was used, we do know that nearly 30 million people in the U.S. are drinking water contaminated with Atrazine, Simazine, Telone II, 2,4-D, or 2,4,5-T. All of these chemicals are related to DDT and were first sold in the 1940s, after they were developed in World War II. Simazine and 2,4,5-T had their EPA registrations cancelled more than twenty years ago because they were so deadly; yet millions of people in the U.S. still drink water contaminated with these two terrible war toys. They just can’t be removed from the water. There are no chemicals that will destroy these chemicals, they aren’t destroyed by heat or ice. All these DDT relatives caused cancer and multiple birth defects in tests on laboratory animals. They continue today to greatly damage bird populations in farm country. So what on earth are they doing to you and yours?

Let me add one more boot to the ass kicking I’m giving you. Two of these war materials, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T along with Dioxin were the poisons in Agent Orange, the defoliant that killed and crippled so many Vietnamese and American soldiers and turned jungle into denuded ghost lands. And with all of this information, the EPA and FDA and every other fatbutt bureaucratic cesspool thinks is just peachy keen to serve this stuff up to you in every last glass you drink. How do you like that? I’m sure you love it.

Ok, enough sarcasm. Enough pushing your buttons and making you angry. You can’t change the EPA overnight (although lots of letters might get their attention) and you can’t get business to give a damn about you, but you can take charge of this mess in effective ways. First of all, above all else, start buying organic food. Buy locally so that you know where the food is grown and you can visit the farm to be sure they aren’t jiving you. The label “organic” nationally means nothing. There are no real guidelines for the label “organic”, thanks again to our FDA. But many small health food stores and buying co ops investigate their sources to be sure they are authentic because the owners, the employees and their families all eat the same stuff. You cannot trust big corporations. You cannot trust them to look out for you. You can trust them to use the cheapest stuff they can in order to cut corners and make lots of money for their stockholders. If you are a customer and not a stockholder you can be sure you are not on the list.

If you can’t afford to buy organic or can’t find a trusted local source, then consider this. Some foods are more highly dosed than others. It is complicated why this is so, a litany of reasons from how the plant grows, where it grows and who it’s natural enemies are all the way down to how the company that grows it operates. Some plants are just dosed as a matter of course and not based on any real need. Other plants do not have many insect feeders so they just don’t require the trouble and expense. Here is a list of those foods:

Lowest Pesticide Exposure (25% pesticide load or less): Watermelon, Blueberries, Papaya, Eggplant, Broccoli, Cabbage, Bananas, Kiwi, Asparagus, Sweet Peas-Frozen, Mango, Pineapples, Sweet Corn-Frozen, Avocado, Onions.

On this list, Onions have the lowest exposure and Watermelon has the highest (25%). They scale down from Watermelon to Onions. Unless noted as frozen, these are fresh fruits and vegetables and you should buy them fresh. Where noted as frozen, buy frozen. And never buy fruit or vegetables in cans. Not only because of pesticides but because of BPA.

Here are the uglies, the ones to avoid: (50% pesticide load or greater): Peaches, Apples, Sweet Bell Peppers, Celery, Nectarines, Strawberries, Cherries, Lettuce, Grapes – Imported, Pears, Spinach, Potatoes, Carrots, Green Beans, Hot Peppers, Cucumbers.

Again, I listed these starting with the worst. Peaches have a 100% pesticide load and should be avoided, in cans, frozen or fresh. Cucumbers have a little over 50% pesticide load and might be eaten once in awhile. Everything else in between is up to you. Buy authentic organic when you can. Avoid soft skinned fruits like peaches, plums, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, et al.. because their skin allows the pesticide to invade the fruit entirely. On the balance, hard skinned fruits that can be washed and skinned are the best choices. Always wash and skin everything.

Other steps you can take include limiting or eliminating the amount of pesticides in the home, such as bug spray. Also reduce or eliminate the amount of pesticides and chemicals you use on your lawn and buy natural products whenever possible. Non toxic solutions exist. Use Diatomaceous Earth on bugs in the house and yard. It is the best solution for fleas, roaches and garden bugs. Use herbal insectides, too. Other important steps should include restricting your children’s use of public parks and playgrounds. Locate pesticide free zones for your children to use. Stop spraying your own yard and garden; use non toxic, herbal and safe alternatives. Netting works wonders. Write to your government representatives telling them to increase controls over pesticides and to reduce their use in your neighborhood. They stopped flying overhead and dosing all of us with moquito spray, they can stop spraying altogether. Learn to use citronella candles or skin sprays instead. You can place a sign on your lawn or in your garden saying “Pesticide Free” or “NO Pesticides”, perhaps more people will follow suit. It will, at least, let everyone know you are thinking about the safety of the children in your area.

You can detox from pesticides. Start by reducing the amount in the food you eat. You can buy a charcoal filtering system for your water source as this will remove some, not all, of the chemicals in your water. Water softeners use ion exchange technology to remove chemicals from the water so you might investigate this. Carbon will not remove flouride but it does remove some of them. There are arsenic removal filtration systems that you can purchase but test your water first. The local authorities in some areas do a good job of regulating arsenic levels while others are lax. Get a testing kit first and if the levels are high enough for alarm, then buy the filter.

These are just a few ideas. It is important to you monitor what you eat and drink in order to secure your safety and long term health. I hope you find this useful.

Technorati Tags: pesticides, chemicals, food, water, regulation, FDA, EPA, environment, bugs, insects, sprays, spraying, dusting, diotamaceous earth, insecticide

What this boils down to is that suberin can be used to encourage the growth of plants for biofuels, including plants that have been hard to cultivate. It could be used to modify plants so that their production is greater and easier. Many plants that have been isolated for use as biofuels are agriculturally demanding and land amassing.

In this experiment, the scientists analyzed a strain of Arabidopsis that had been genetically modified to disrupt the expression of a gene that codes for an enzyme known as hydroxyacid
hydroxycinnamoyltransferase (HHT).  Chemical analysis showed that “knocking out” the HHT gene led to a deficiency of suberin phenolics, indicating that HHT is the enzyme responsible for biosynthesis of the polymer. The scientists then isolated the gene and expressed it in bacteria to further characterize its function.

It was also demonstrated that the HHT-deficient plants were much more permeable to salt in solution than their wild-type counterparts. This finding, together with the constant presence of suberin in plant root tissues that control water and salt uptake, suggests that suberin plays an important role in the adaptation of plants to their terrestrial habitats. Translation: Suberin, found in cork, makes plants more adaptable and easier to cultivate.

If they get a handle on the mechanism responsible for suberin production they might be able to create crops tailored to thrive in specific environments. This means harsh environments, which have been a roadblock to growing plants that can produce economically efficient biofuels. If certain breeds can be created that are more adept at absorbing and storing water and nutrients, then crops could be grown in dry or arid climates, perhaps even in the desert. If they could make use out of the currently unusable vast landscapes that comprise our deserts, then the aerable land used for more delicate food crops could be spared. As well, the current finding that modifications in suberin phenolic production can alter plants’ tolerance to salt suggests that this might also help create crops that can grow in salty conditions. This means agricultural use for currently useless land on our coasts.

This is a fantastic step forward in the science of creating plants for biofuels. It makes use of currently unviable lands, frees up aerable land for food crops and promises the proliferation of genetically modified, non food, crops for use as sustainable biofuels. Looks like a win-win to me!

Technorati Tags: biofuels, sustainable fuels, gmo, gmo crops, biofuel crops, suberin, deserts, salt water, energy, alternative energy

In this project the company is again operating through United Solar Ovonic, a subsidiary of ECD. In this manner, they will oversee the construction of the rooftop system. In this project, the materials will consist of UNI-SOLAR laminates bonded to the Giscosa waterproofing system and applied directly on the roofs. When finished, the system will be owned and managed by Endesa. Construction will begin this quarter, with completion expected in the first half of calendar 2010.

Technorati Tags: solar, solar energy, alternative energy, renewables, UNI-SOLAR, photovoltaic laminates, rooftop solar, Endesa, ECD, Giscosa waterproofing system

ECD’s PowerTilt product can be installed on any roof type, is very light weight and has higher energy production. This project will be on many different roofing materials so this makes the PowerTilt product the best choice. On the business end, ECD will also provide development equity during the construction phase of the projects.

This project is being done under Ontarios’ new feed-in-tariff program. The companies expect to complete construction of approximately 10MW of projects during calendar 2010.

Technorati Tags: alternative energy, buildings, eco, electricity, green, green initiatives, power, renewables, rooftop solar, solar energy, solar projects

Recent studies prove that chemicals in the water supply (from the ocean up the waterways to your kitchen sink) are bending genders in wildlife. These chemicals are what is known as endocrine disruptors, similar to the BPA everyone has been talking about, and they change the sex in organisms. Aquatic organisms are switching from male to female and back again as a result of exposure to these chemicals. But the stuff isn’t isolated to distant waterways where nothing but creeping anemones sprawl on rocks and in caves; this stuff is right out there, where you might even be swimming. For sure, they are moving into the water that is used to make our tap water. No kidding.

This has been going on for decades, by the way. As you might imagine, substances found in many common household products are finding their way into the waterways.. and, sadly, are altering the hormones of wildlife until, in some cases, it changes their sex entirely. This is serious stuff. It not only affects small amoebas or algaes but animals as large as Hermit Crabs, in which the phenomenon has been documented. This is because of chemicals like TBT, which is found in type of paint used by sailors to keep barnacles from growing on the hulls of their ships.

But not just bottom paint on a few boats causes this. From plastics to pesticides, cosmetics substances for industrial use, detergents and human urine, as well, the sources of endocrine disrupters are many. Although there is a huge difference in the composition of substances like detergent and human urine, they all have the ability to interact with estrogen receptors that almost all animals carry in their cell membranes. These substances are actually a kind of “disguised” hormones, producing misleading messages that make cells multiply (like cancer), die or produce proteins when they shouldn’t be. This is reeking havoc with our natural world and is likely to have an impact on all of us over time.

One of the worst effects these endocrin disrupters have on living organisms is the feminizing of males and causing females to become more masculine. Now, this does not mean that they just go around acting “gay”, it means that they actually acquire the characteristics of the opposite sex. During this process, the same chemicals are suspected to have created the huge drop in fertility among polar bears, penguins and other overly exposed species (aquatic animals) that has been documented.

In the studies with Hermit Crabs, it was found that 8 percent of the crabs possessed both male and female reproductive organs. This is where they began to suspect that TBT might be to blame. Since this study was completed, they have banned the use of the paint with TBT and although this was hoped to stem the problem, it persists to this day. In the course of events that have followed, many substances containing potential endocrine disruptors have been outlawed but this method has been hit and miss, willy nilly and not that effective. The outlawing of DDT has helped to some extent but to pick and choose products to ban and then leave others on the shelves, is not a solution. Plastics, in particular, are proving to be among the worst offenders and yet, as you well know, they are still everywhere.

But here’s the real painful part. Some researchers suspect that endocrine disrupters have been manipulating the hormone levels in humans as well. There has been a drastic decline in the sperm count of men over the past 60 years, and the substance may be to blame. Still, with some many possible culprits introduced in that period, proving a connection may be impossible. Loss of virility is channeled into our conciousness everytime we see another add for ED meds and the number of women desperately seeking fertility treatments has risen drastically over the past few decades. Just about in line with the time that plastics took over our world.

The big prolbem is that it is very hard to confirm a causal link between these contaminants and human health. This in spite of the fact that the environmental impact is already well established. The problem is that, as a society, we continue to believe that the human universe exists above and beyond that of animals and of the planet. We have yet to accept a general trajectory between the two. Science has attempted to draw a line from one to the other but many people refuse to believe it. Until we realize that what happens to the world at large has an impact on our little worlds then this sort of thing will go unchecked.

And although there has been a push to limit the presence of endocrine disrupters in the world’s ecosystems, research shows that it is still changing the sex of some aquatic organisms. This is a disaster which is likely to find it’s way back to our human system if through nothing more than the food chain. So I don’t think you can avoid contact with this stuff simply by changing shampoos or washing your homes in vinegar; natural alternatives will only help so much. As long as we eat from the world around us, from our vegetables to our proteins, we are vulnerable. And I am afraid it is going to take a measurable human toll to force the changes we desperately need. When we start finding our own children switching from male to female or female to male we might start to pay attention. Until then, the woman with a new moustache or the man with a rising pitch in his voice may not put the two things together. I am afraid that by the time we do, it will be to late to turn back.

Technorati Tags: animals, bpa, chemicals, gender, pollution, poisons, sex, tbt, toxins, water

Suspected of being hazardous to humans since as early as the 1930s, current concerns about the use of bisphenol A in consumer products began in 2008. At that time several governments and their agencies issued reports questioning its’ safety. The news media grabbed the story and many retailers quietly removed products containing BPA from store shelves. Up until now, the main concern have been regarding the exposure of fetuses, infants and young children to products loaded with the compound.

But there is new, disheartening (excuse the pun), news. A study released this week by researchers at the University of Cincinnati says that exposure to bisphenol A may increase heart disease in women. And guess what? New research proves that these effects can occur at very low levels of exposure. In other words, you don’t have to drink more than a couple sodas a day or use more than 1 or 2 plastic food storage containers.

This new information was released in a study that was presented at June 2009 Endocrine Society annual meeting.

BPA is desired by manufacturers because it can create plastics so durable they can then be used in sports gear, motor vehicles, shatterproof lenses as well as in baby bottles and toddlers sippy cups. The big problem arises when the chemical leaches from finished products and ends up in the bowl of corn or the cup of soda. In actuality, the plastics and resins created by this process are so widespread that BPA is literally everywhere. Because of this, current exposure to this chemical by American consumers is nearly continuous, even though the chemical BPA does not last long in the environment or in the human body. There is no “down time” in effect, because just as you finish the can of soda and the chemical starts to leave your body, you are handling or eating something else that renders BPA.

This is scary stuff. In fact, oversight by the US CDC has found BPA in nearly 95% of the Americans they have tested! As well, a current study by Health Canada found BPA in 96% of the canned soft drinks it tested. Please note that this study that covered 84% of all soft drinks sold in Canada and that the levels found where equivalent to 500 times what are considered normal estrogen levels! I mean, seriously. I’m getting paranoid here. I’m at that age when heart disease starts being an issue and it runs in my family.

The study showed that even very low levels of BPA can interfere with the genetic receptors that help regulate cardiac muscles, resulting in an increased frequency of irregular heartbeat. This is interesting because I personally know several people who have developed irregular heartbeats over time. In every case, it did not have genetic relevance nor was it predisposed. This new study shows that BPA, as an “estrogenic” compound, interferes with how the heart muscles produce calcium. Calcium, as you may known, is a key factor in maintaining a normal, healthy heartbeat. Now, due to the specific ways in which the female body responds to estrogenic substances, this effect occurs in females rather than males. So there you have it. Like I said, scary stuff.

Does this explain the current rise in heart fatalities among women, when women were once considered safe from this (in general, at least)? I realize that currently 30% of women suffer from cardiovascular disease and nowadays women account for about 50% of heart fatalities but this was not always the case. When I was growing up, heart problems were the least of women’s worries. Why the big change? And why are we not paying attention?

To make a bad situation even worse, the American Heart Association are now saying that women have a higher rate of death from a repeat — rather than first — heart attack. This makes any factors.. including BPA exposure.. that might increase the chances of having a second attack, a big concern.

To be fair, the adverse impact of BPA on cardiac muscles have been seen in cells isolated from rats and mice. It is the scientists belief that the mechanism triggered here should work the same way in human hearts. In addition, the Endocrine Society released a statement last year that points out endocrine-disruption chemicals (like BPA) work the same way in wildlife as in humans and have produced the same results in both live-animal and cell-culture experiments. The current study used cells isolated from human heart transplants.

BPA is currently approved for use in products by the USDA, even in food contact items. This means that they think it’s safe and that they are not going to restrict it’s use. However, this mounting evidence claiming the adverse health impact of this compound has triggered efforts to regulate it. In fact, many states have introduced bills that would ban BPA from infant and children’s products. So far, the impetus is slow rising. Only two have passed, one in Chicago, the other in Minnesota. But, as always, the grassroots is where true change takes hold. If the public lets their preferences be known with their wallets, well, then.. things happen. In the wake of bad publicity, a number of U.S. retailers have withdrawn products voluntarily, among them Wal-Mart and Toys R Us. The entire country of Canada has banned BPA from baby bottles sold there and now includes BPA on its list of toxic substances.

I realize that the resistance in this country comes from the basic tenants of a free market. Regulations and restrictions on products hurts manufacturers, influences wall street returns and puts people out of work. But ethical and moral considerations must come into play at some point. Is it worth killing your customer base just to sell another bottle? In their usual head in the sand style, the chemical and plastics industry maintains that BPA is safe, as does the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, whose members use BPA in food-can lining. I mean, who would want to spend a few more cents coming up with an alternative? Just kill off your customers.. or bet yet, sterilize them.. so that the need for your product dries up. I realize the retail industry in the US is not known for intelligence or foresight but I think dire circumstances will drive innovation. In the face of disaster, they won’t have a choice.

They continue to release the same inane, banal, wrote statements about safety. These are usually rooted in the general belief that the stamp of approval from the USDA means something. If you are awake, you know different. If you are pushing your cart through the grocery or big box store snoring and drooling on yourself, then that’s another story. But you simply cannot afford to do that. Even if you don’t give a hoot about yourself.. then what about your kids?

While they dismiss the science and claim that animal studies are irrelevant, more and more women may die. Consider this. Although this is not confirmation of any direct cause and effect, the AMA published in it’s journal the results of research that showed that people exposed to higher levels of BPA are more likely to develop cardiovascular disease than those who were not. This study was based on samples from nearly 1,500 adults collected by the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Since this isn’t animals and it’s a credible institution, what do they say now? Nothing, of course. Inertia rules.

Given the strong evidence of multiple adverse health impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as bisphenol A, the Endocrine Society, which has over 14,000 members from over 100 countries, is currently recommending decreasing your exposure to these chemicals. Meanwhile, the FDA is continuing its own review of BPA safety. But waiting for the FDA to go against industry is like waiting for grass to grow on the desert.

This is going to be up to YOU. You have to take your own health and well being into your own hands and stop relying on manufacturers to produce something safe or for retailers to tell you the truth about their products. Where the game is to make money, ethics and morals go out the window. You remember the old saying, “all is fair in love and war”? Well, this now applies to business, too.

The whole idea behind my blog is “planting a seed for change”. And realizing that only you can change your world, I try to give you the information you need and some tools to work with. The first tool in you arsenal is always your wallet. Stop buying garbage and they’ll stop making it. Stop and think before you spend. Don’t just buy the cheapest. Save up for the best and buy less.

In this case, you need to educate yourself about BPA. And then you need to stop buying products you don’t really need that have it. There are some products you can’t avoid but you should cut down on them. This list starts with soda in plastic bottles or cans (buy glass where you can), cans of vegetables (buy frozen), food storage containers (buy baggies) or plastic eyeglass lenses (insist on glass). Look on the bottom of bottles and cans and reject any that are marked with a “3″ or a “7″. Buy plastic items marked with a recycling number “1″ or “2″. Look for the letters “PC” near the recycling symbol and reject these. Look for plastic types, “1″, “2″, “4″, “5″ or “6″. PET bottles are safe. Be very careful when buying baby bottles or other plastic items for kids.

Some things you can’t avoid and these include CDs, DVDs, CD and DVD cases, epoxy resins, dental fillings, thermal and carbonless copy papers, epoxy coatings and resins and sports equipment. There are now Japanese made epoxy coatings and resins that are BPA free and may be sold in various areas so check and see if these are available. In the U.S., BPA is manufactured by Bayer MaterialScience, Dow Chemical Company, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), Hexion Specialty Chemicals, and Sunoco Chemicals. In 2004, alone, these companies produced just over 1 million tons of bisphenol A, up from just 7,260 tons in 1991. In 2003, annual U.S. consumption was 856,000 tons, 72% of which was used to make polycarbonate plastic and 21% going into epoxy resins.

There is one more thing you can do to make a difference. Sign these petitions. By doing so, you are letting industry know that you are not snoring behind the cart and that you care what you and your family consume. Enough of you do this and it will make a difference, I promise.

Tell Congress to Ban BPA

No More BPA!

Toxic Free Baby Bottles!

No More BPA in Campbells Soup

Ban BPA in Drink Cans

Global Petitions to Ban BPA

Wake up and do something! You can change the world.

Technorati Tags: BPA, bisphenol A, chemicals, drinks, endocrine disruptors, FDA, plastics, products, regulations, toxins

Last year, the UN drafted a text for Copenhagen which specified that biochar should be considered eligible as an advanced mitigation option under a post-Kyoto treaty. Regardless of the lackluster results of that meeting and the ongoing struggle over a viable treaty, biochar is already a legitimate source of tradable carbon credits. This is a a good deal for all of us because, unlike some of the more technologically complex methods of sequestering greenhouse gases, such as carbon capture and storage, biochar could, in theory, be easily adopted worldwide and managed by small- and medium-scale operations.

The newest twist on biochar is being developed as I write this. The use of giant microwave ovens to “cook” wood into charcoal are being developed. By burying the charcoal produced from microwaved wood, the carbon absorbed by a tree as it grows can remain safely locked away for thousands of years. This new technique could take out billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year! This is amazing new technology and must be explored.

More amazing facts include processing facilities that could be built right next to forests grown specifically to soak up CO2. Theoretically, we could cut down trees, “carbonise” them and then plant more trees. The forest could act on an industrial scale to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. I realize it is already doing that just by being there, but this puts the process on steroids. Consider this. Then, at this stage, the biochar could be placed in disused coal mines or tilled into the ground to make soil more fertile. Imagine turning coal mines into aerable land for food! The porous structure of biochar is ideal for trapping nutrients and beneficial micro-organisms that help plants grow. I have used charcoal to feed my plants myself so I know this is true. It also improves drainage and can prevent up to 80 per cent of greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxides and methane from escaping from the soil. It is the perfect gas mask for the planet.

But despite its astounding potential, caution is warranted in implementing biochar on a large scale. Though re-creating terra preta sounds simple, current students have found it possible that modern-day soils respond less well to the treatment and that the carbon may escape sooner than anticipated. So there is no doubt, at this very moment in time, that not all the evidence is in on the case for biochar. However, overall, the evidence is positive and there is no reason to halt forward movement on this idea just because there may be a few tiny holes in the fabric.

The current excitement over biochar must remain in check, however. We have had all past highs and then let downs, such as with corn based biofuels. Biochar shares one common problem with corn, it requires a lot of land. Land that is in demand from other industry. There is bound to be disruption and dispute along the way as the developers of this project seek out what is needed to make it happen. And as they do this, they will have to lay out a set of rules, code of ethics, so to speak, as to what is acceptable and what is not. Where do we draw the lines? This is all still up in the air and if we are reasonable as well as expedient, I believe we are capable of getting this done.

For more information on biochar and it’s possibilities, go to BioChar International.

Technorati Tags: biochar, carbon, carbon trapping, carbon offsets, charcoal, conservation, ecology, environment, environmental initiatives, global warming, kyoto protocol, reducing emissions

Joule Biotechnologies, Inc, a producer of alternative energy technologies based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, announced in 2009 that it had made a major step forward in its’ development of renewable fuels. This step forward involves the direct microbial conversion of carbon dioxide (CO2) into hydrocarbons via engineered organisms, powered by solar energy. I know it sounds convoluted but the creation of renewable energy requires working around.. and I mean a long way around.. current technologies.

Joules’ principal development is termed helioculture, a process that generates hydrocarbon-based fuel by combining brackish water, nutrients, photosynthetic organisms, carbon dioxide, and sunlight. The company plans to start building a facility that will be able to produce more than 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year (19,000 m3/km2·a) starting in 2011. This project is closer at hand than most. Helioculture is similar to the process that makes fuel from algae, but does not use algae. Oils made from algae usually have to be refined into fuel, but helioculture produces fuel directly – either ethanol or hydrocarbons – that do not need refining. This is an ambitious and promising concept that would speed up the transition from petrol to agricultural based oils and make it available much sooner than previously anticipated.

Joule is currently advancing a new, photosynthesis-driven approach to producing renewable fuels, avoiding the economic and environmental burden of multi-step, cellulosic or algal biomass-derived methods. Joule claims that its product will be cost competitive with crude oil at $50 a barrel ($310/m3). The company also states that its product could supply all of the transportation fuel for the United States from an area the size of the Texas panhandle. The company employs a novel Solar Converter system, combined with their own product specific organisms and state-of-the-art process design, to harness the power of sunlight while consuming CO2 from waste. It is really a scientific achievement of amazing proportions that will effect energy consumption on a world wide scale.

Joule has already proven that it’s pioneering technology platform converts CO2 into ethanol at high productivity levels. This process is entering pilot development early this year and because of this success of genome engineering, Joule is now capable of directly producing hydrocarbons. This amazing feat sets the stage for delivery of infrastructure through a compatible diesel fuel without the need for raw material feed stocks or complex refining. I know this is a lot of techno babble to choke down but take my word for it, this is a big breakthrough for renewables and offers, for the first time, a glimpse at the possibilities of a world driven by something other than petroleum.

This big breakthrough was made possible by the discovery of unique genes coding for enzymatic mechanisms that enable the direct synthesis of both alkane and olefin molecules. This is the chemical composition of diesel. Production was achieved at lab scale, with pilot development slated for early next year. Joule is manipulating this opportunity with a production process that requires only CO2 instead of raw material feed stocks. This removes a costly component (algae, corn, cotton or any other biological matter that has been considered for use) that can be subject to significant fluctuations in price and availability. When the stock market pushes the price of corn through the roof, just how marketable is oil made of corn? This is not a problem with Joule’s product. As well, they do not need arable land or large greenhouse operations to do this.  Amazing.

Because they engineer their own organisms, which directly secrete hydrocarbon molecules, Joule will avoid costly steps such as large-scale biomass collection, energy-intensive degradation, or other downstream refinement. This is a fantastic move forward into simplicity and cost reduction. In addition, as I already said (but it can’t be said enough) this process requires just marginal, non-arable land, no crops and no fresh water. In other words, you can make it anywhere, under all conditions. It may well be the solution we’ve all been looking for. I will watch it closely and report results as they become available.

Technorati Tags: biofules, biotechnology, CO2, diesel, fuel, helioculture, hydrocarbons, Joule, renewables, sustainable

So the USDA has joined a venture with Genome Canada and France’s NIAR (National Institute for Agricultural Research) which aims to create a reference genome for Sunflowers within the next four years. That seems reasonable to me. I just hope they don’t end up genetically modifying Sunflowers now, creating frankenseeds. That would be another mess like the failed attempt to modify corn for food and fuel. That little experiment had the entire world rejecting our corn, including starving masses who would take the bags and dump them rather than eat them and this during major disasters and war.

The Sunflower comes for the world’s largest plant family. This family of plants contains 24,000 species of food crops, medicinal plants, decorative plants and noxious weeds. As a footnote, I will add that the Sunflower genome is 3.5 billion letters long, slightly larger than the human genome. In modern molecular biology, the genome is the entirety of an organism’s hereditary information. It is encoded either in DNA or, for many types of virus, in RNA. The genome includes both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA.

But once the experiment is completed and the genetic makeup of the Sunflower is known, the species could be crossbred to produce a plant that grows as high as 15 feet with stalks up to 4 inches in diameter and also produces high quality seeds. Sounds like a fantasy, doesn’t it? It’s almost scary when you think about it. But a plant like this, capable of both feeding and fueling, would be a miracle of sorts. The project engineers are saying that the seeds would be harvested for both food and energy, while the stalks could also be used like wood or converted to ethanol. Quite a feat, I believe. A dual use crop that they hope will not be competition with other food crops for arable land. Sustainable. Imagine that! All I hope at this point in time that this isn’t just another scheme dreamed up by folk who want government money to fool around for awhile. We’ve had quite a few busts so far and I am not sure we can afford a lot more of that. I’ll be watching this study closely and I will report back on the results.

Technorati Tags: alternative energy, biofuels, eco, energy, food, renewables, sunflowers, sustainable

One of the drawbacks in the development of sources for solar power is that it requires the Sun 24/7, which is just not possible from the surface of an orbiting planet. This requirement is the result of the need for electricity every day, around the clock and the drawback is that the Sun is not available all the time and even when it is, it is often reduced by clouds or rain. So how do you fill in the blanks? So that solar power becomes a viable, around the clock source of electrical power?

From: Fox News

Launch solar panels into space and beam the power back to Earth.

This idea, which seems difficult and expensive at first blush, also solves other problems related to solar power. The hottest surfaces on the planet, the desert, for instance, are never the areas where large populations reside. So in order to build big solar arrays and put them where the sun shines the hottest is to place them in areas where people are not comfortable living. The end result of this is that you’d have to send electricity many hundreds of miles to the grid over.. what? Invisible transmission lines? I don’t think so.

So these problems plague solar power and have cut into the enthusiasm that many have had for it over the years. But now there is a solution! Or at least one that they think they can make work. I know the concept sounds far-fetched and wildly impractical, hard to accomplish and super expensive. When it was first discussed, at one time by the Pentagon and space enthusiasts, back in the 1960s and 1970s, it was ridiculous. Recently, however, the idea of space-based solar power has begun to look less like science fiction and more like a technology whose time may be coming. Mostly because the Pentagon and private companies are ramping up efforts to make space-based solar power a reality.

Known as SBSP (space based solar power), the exciting plan requires beaming space-based solar power back to Earth. This involves launching a series of large satellites into space, using robotic technology to assemble the solar arrays, transmitting the energy 22,000 miles to earth using microwave technology, and then converting that energy to electricity on the ground. Whew. I get exhausted just writing about it! But the fact is, all of that is now feasible (although still pricey) thanks to technological advances in recent years. These include cheaper and more reliable launch technology, lighter and stronger materials for solar stations, significant improvements in the robotic technology needed to assemble the solar arrays, far more efficient solar cells, more precise digital devices to direct that energy accurately to earth, and significantly smaller and more powerful microwave transmitters and receivers.

As well, as recent as a year ago, engineers did a small but successful experiment in taking energy from solar cells, converting it to microwaves, and then beaming it 92 miles from Maui to the Big Island of Hawaii, where it was converted back into 20 watts worth of electricity. This provided proof that such a thing could actually be done. And then also last spring, the California-based Solaren Corporation signed a contract with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to provide 200 megawatts of power – about half the output of an average coal-fired power plant – by 2016 by launching solar arrays into space. I realize this is small and doesn’t seem immediately useful to millions when the planned output is so tiny and the span of time so great but it is a promising start. It proves at last that such a process is possible. To the credit of this great idea, several other companies have announced their intentions to put up solar satellites of their own.

But the big question still looms. Can this feat be accomplished at a price competitive with terrestrial solar power? So far, the Pentagon’s estimate of what it will cost – $10 billion to put a 10-megawatt experimental solar station in orbit by 2016 – is five times higher than Solaren’s and would produce far less power. There is no way this would ever be feasible for powering small plants or residential properties but it has promise for large scale operations and for military use. In fact, of the factors driving the renewed interest in space-based solar power are the current push to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and a growing interest from the military. But the truth is none of this interest or even the strongest desire will make a wit of difference if the cost is outrageous.

Back in 1968 this concept was first offered by Peter Glaser, an engineer in 1968. He worked with the consulting firm Arthur D Little on space related projects. He was excited by the solar cells and microwave transmitters that had come into existence during that time as well as the winding down of the Apollo program, leaving NASA eager to start new research for interesting projects. One of those projects, launching “space habitats” evolved into our current Space Shuttle program which allows people to actually live and work in space. With people on the Space Station there was and still is a desire to have them build solar powered satellites.

But the whole idea was scrapped back them because it was logistically difficult because the Satellites themselves would make the Space Shuttle look like a toy and they had not yet developed the robotic arms they use today and such an idea seemed impossible. If they had gone forward with it back then the cost would have been astronomical. Something like a trillion dollars, I kid you not, just to get the first kilowatt of power! And overall, it would have taken 20 years.. and it was not worth it. It is still very pricey today even with our new developments.

The up side is that, at 22,000 miles up in the atmosphere, a geostationary satellite is in full sunlight virtually all the time. So the idea never really went away. In fact, as early as the mid-1990s, NASA did revisit the concept. At that time a team of engineers was assembled to see whether advances in technology made space-based solar power more feasible. It was at this time that the idea first appeared to be doable. Especially today, with the new information regarding climate change and other factors that require we use less oil and coal. One popular notion is energy independence. So the desire to reduce carbon emissions combined with the desire to create our own energy sources, this idea has taken on new momentum.

And as far as the cost, it is almost inevitable that carbon emissions will end up being taxed one way or another, and when they are, renewables like SBSP will immediately become more competitive economically. It will be a matter of whether industry will wish to continue cranking it’s engines on the old gas at a higher tax expense or make the switch to solar at a similar price. And this is what motivates companies like Solaren and PG&E. Although they are unwilling to reveal the details of their very secret research, Solaren has said publicly that it will cost roughly $2 billion to launch a handful of satellites carrying the equipment that will be robotically assembled into a single, large solar station. That’s a big hunk of cash but it’s actually very little when you consider that America spends almost as much a day on our wars.

One way the company plans to boost efficiency is to use parabolic reflectors to concentrate sunlight onto the solar cells. The biggest expense will be getting the equipment into space but if they can lower the overall weight of that equipment they can reduce the overall number of launches and, hence, the overall cost. Solaren has big plans for this medium, with a desire to put satellites into orbit that can generate enough electricity for 1 million homes. Their “rectanna” will consist of an array of smaller antennas that will cover about a square kilometer – far less real estate than you’d need if you were using ground-based solar cells to gather an equivalent amount of power. And because Solaren’s satellite will be in geostationary orbit, the antennas won’t have to track it across the sky. Just like a satellite TV receiver, they’ll always aim at a fixed point in the sky.

The microwaves are spread out over a square kilometer and this means that they’d be relatively harmless to creatures like a flock of birds that might fly through them. And if the beam should wander, the satellite will be programmed to scatter it. Pretty cool stuff, no? Writing this I feel like I’m writing a segment for Star Trek. It really does feel a lot like science fiction.

Solaren isn’t the only company trying to commercialize SBSP. PowerSat an Space Energy are fast on the track. PowerSat is based in Everett, Wash. and has recently filed patents for its own space-power system, which will use an array of hundreds of small satellites linked together rather than a single large one. PowerSat also claims it can reduce some of the high costs of putting the technology in space by using solar energy to power electronic thrusters to maneuver the satellites into orbit. Sort of a double solar benefit, I guess. And Space Energy, which is a Swiss company, is also working on SBSP. Solaren is the only one, though, with a contract with a brick and mortar utility. This is an important advancement because it has always been thought that Solar Energy is a hard sell and so expensive it could be a no sell at all.

But consumer interest is there these days, with fears of global warming and concern over the environment. Where there is money, there is a will. And, of course, with interest from the military, SBSP could give a major boost to the technology. First and foremost, the military is interested in energy security and this concept offers that. They are also interested in getting off fossil fuels because climate change could pose national security risks. But there would also be a tactical advantage to space-based solar when you consider that the military uses diesel generators to supply their bases with power in remote regions such as Iraq, Afghanistan and in undeveloped countries as well. They end up having a significant footprint getting energy in to these remote places with frequent convoys of oil tankers, the soldiers needed to protect them, and air support. This all adds to the overall expense and danger of using oil. A solar solution would fix all of that.

Consider also what a fantastic effect this technology would have on disaster response. There would be no need to move tankers, trucks, boats or aircraft over destroyed land areas after hurricanes or earthquakes just to get energy to the people saving lives. Such huge benefits has fueled government interest in this technology as well as interest from the private sector and the military. NASA is particularly entangled in the research, development and future use of SBSP. By undertaking some of the research and being an early customer for SBSP, the government could rapidly accelerate development of the technology. And this sort of investment both of money and of time is necessary to get this done.

Technorati Tags: DOE, eco, electricity, energy, government initiatives, grid, NASA, renewable energy, solar energy, space, sustainable