A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

[erich]

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

 

Over the past year many luminaries have made clarion calls for a concerted effort to solve the energy crisis. It is a crisis, with 300 million middle class Chinese determined to attain the unsustainable lifestyle we have sold them. Their thirst for oil is growing at 30% a year, and can do nothing but heat the earth and spark political conflict.

 

We have been heating the earth since the agricultural revolution with the positive result of providing 10,000 years of warm stability. But since the Industrial revolution we have been pushing the biosphere over the brink. Life forces have done this before -- during the snowball earth period ( Cryogenian Period ) in the Neoproterozoic toward the end of the Precambrian - but that life force was not sentient!

 

Thomas Freedman of the New York Times has called for a Manhattan Project for clean energy The New York Times> Search> Abstract . Richard Smalley, one of the fathers of nanotechnology, has made a similar plea http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html3month/2004/040902.Smalley.energy.html .

We are at the cusp in several technologies to fulfilling this clean energy dream. All that we need is the political leadership to shift our fiscal priorities.

 

I feel our resources should be focused in three promising technologies:

 

1. Nanotechnology: The exploitation of quantum effects is finally being seen in these new materials. Photovoltaics (PV) are at last going beyond silicon, with many companies promising near-term breakthroughs in efficiencies and lower cost. Even silicon is gaining new efficienies from nano-tech: Researchers develop technique to use dirty silicon, could pave way for cheaper solar energy http://www.physorg.com/news5831.html

 

Titania Nanotube Arrays Harness Solar Energy

http://www.physorg.com/news10244.html

 

Direct Solar to Hydrogen:

Rupert Leach, Director, Newspath Ltd, from the UK posted me about his talking to the Chairman of Hydrogen Solar, Julian Keable http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html, saying that they will be well over 10% efficiency in the near future with their Tandem Cell™, technology, and that they had initial issues with scale-up, but these seem to have been overcome and they were sounding rather optimistic a few weeks ago.

 

 

 

Thermionics: The direct conversion of heat to electricity has been at best only 5% efficient. Now with quantum tunneling chips we are talking 80% of carnot efficiency. A good example is the proposed thermionic car design of Borealis. ( http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf ) . The estimated well-to-wheel efficiency is over 50%. This compares to 13% for internal combustion and 27% for hydrogen fuel cells. This means a car that has a range of 1500 miles on one fill up. Rodney T. Cox, president of Borealis, has told me that he plans to have this car developed within two years. Boeing has already used his Chorus motor drives http://www.chorusmotors.gi/.

on the nose gear of it's 767. (Boeing Demonstrates New Technology for Moving Airplanes on the Ground http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q3/nr_050801a.html )

The Borealis thermocouple power chips http://www.powerchips.gi/index.shtml (and cool chips) applied to all the waste heat in our economy would make our unsustainable lifestyle more than sustainable.

You may find an extensive discussion on thermo electric patents at: Nanalyze Forums - Direct conversion of heat to electricity http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1006੾

 

2. Biotechnology: Since his revolutionary work on the human genome project, Craig Venter has been finding thousands of previously unknown life forms in the sea and air. His goal is to use these creatures to develop the ultimate energy bug to produce hydrogen and or use of their photoreceptor genes for solar energy. http://www.venterscience.org/ Imagine a bioreactor in your home taking all your waste, adding some solar energy, and your electric and transportation needs are fulfilled.

 

BIO Hydrogen: http://www.nanologix.net/index.php

"NanoLogix is a nanobiotechnology company that engages in the research, development, and commercialization of technologies for the production of bacteria, disease testing kits, alternative sources of fuel"

The NanoLogix breakthrough came about when the Company’s researchers were tinkering with its proprietary biological-based diagnostic and remediation technologies, noting that one of its patented bacterial culturing methods could produce byproduct gas surprisingly rich in hydrogen.

 

 

3. Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts.

 

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as fallows:

 

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's

chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing

that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and

EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their

work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General

Motors)."

 

and

 

"Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid

formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment

remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this

technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the

automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of

functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at

Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices)."

 

EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons.

 

It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid http://www.electronpowersystems.com/Images/Ball%20Lightning%20Explained.pdf

The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants, NIST grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

 

Recent support has also come from one of the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, when he got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in the May issue of Scientific American,

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00032CE5-13B7-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F

Dwyer's paper:

http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

 

and according to Clint Seward it supports his lightning models and fusion work at Electron Power Systems

 

Clint sent Joe and I his new paper on a lightning charge transport model of cloud to ground lightning (he did not want me to post it to the web yet). Joe was supportive and suggested some other papers to consider and Clint is now in re-write.

 

It may also explain Elves, blue jets, sprites and red sprites, plasmas that appear above thunder storms. After a little searching, this seemed to have the best hard numbers on the observations of sprites.

 

Dr. Mark A. Stanley's Dissertation

http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~stanleym/dissertation/main.html

 

And may also explain the spiral twist of some fulgurites, hollow fused sand tubes found in sandy ground at lightning strikes.

 

 

The learning curve is so steep now, and with the resources of the online community, I'm sure we can rally greater support to solve this paramount problem of our time. I hold no truck with those who argue that big business or government are suppressing these technologies. It is only our complacency and comfort that blind us from pushing our leaders toward clean energy.

 

 

Erich J. Knight

[email protected]

[Eclogite]

I scanned your post, but it was your closing sensible and accurate statement that encourages me to go back and read it (and the associated links) properly.

I hold no truck with those who argue that big business or government are suppressing these technologies. It is only our complacency and comfort that blind us from pushing our leaders toward clean energy.

Let me ask you why you are less interested in large scale fusion projects. Surely the time scale on these is decades because, as with all the other examples you have mentioned, there is insufficient investment. No?

[erich]

Big science has spent tens of billions and we are no closer to a break even reactor. Just a few hundred thousand toward these alternative concepts may get us there. The ITER will take 5 billion and they say it will be decades befor it puts any power on the grid.

 

I do like the LDX : http://psfcwww2.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/

[erich]

What do you all think of this direct solar to hydrogen technology? I was told they have hit 10% efficiency and solved mass production problems. Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html

 

And This company:

Barnabus Energy, Inc. (OTC BB : BBSE) Investor Facts http://www.otcfn.com/bbse/report.html

I can't find much on the Suncone, but the solar roofing technology they are acquiring looks solid.

 

And just coming out of the lab, this looks very strong:

UB News Services-solar nano-dots

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=75000009

 

Cheers,

Erich J. Knight

[UncleAl]

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

1) What does not exist cannot be discovered.

2) There are no maxima or minima to be discovered on a plane.

3) There are no exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics.

4) Physical reality is not subject to majority or minority vote, or any vote at all.

5) Prayer, see (4)

6) Enviro-whinerism: Expensive, shoddy, deadly.

7) Civilization knows what it is doing.

8) Don't be an idiot - or at least don't be a gullible idiot.

 

Sustainable development: Luddism.

Poverty: the process by which opportunity requires personal responsibility.

Natural: odorous, ignorant, dangerous, ineffective; always recommended to somebody else.

Environmentalism: whatever you have of value, we are against it.

Globalization: universal opportunity creates pandemic poverty because only workers have money to spend.

Liberal: one who believes HIV and AIDS are spread by a lack of funding.

Economic policy: best guesses in general; payoffs in particular.

Compassion: an evolutionarily stupid act committed at others' expense.

Conservation: somebody else in the tenebrous future deserves to consume it; and not them, either.

Social engineering: assassination of the future.

[Tagred]

Hi I'm new to this site and there seems to be a good few discussions :eek2:

 

I had to register to reply to UncleAl's post, because I think he may be misinformed on a few subjects.

 

Firstly nanotechnology is something that is being and has being acheived, it will take more time and resources to get to the level where it can be true nanotech, so it isn't something that doesnt exist, and it is something that can be achieved.

 

Secondly, sustainable development is in no way Luddism, it is a practical approach to managing limited resources for long term use. Perfect example of unsustainable living can be seen on Easter Island where the inhabitants used every resource and ended up as a small collection of cannibals before being discovered.

 

Poverty: I find that a rather naive commenti. Take the 5million or so children dying in Africa on a yearly basis. Each starving family cannot make good their existence, no matter what responsibility you may think they have. Their responsibilioty is to feed themselves, yet they are not allowed to.

 

Environmentalism: clearly you either do not understand what it is, or how it works

Conservation: is the protection of a system, building, habitat, ecology, almost anything so that it is not lost to the world, either for aesthetic, scientific, historic, religious or any other many reasons.

 

Can "clean" energy be produced, absolutely, the return on even todays inefficient systems such as wind, wave, photovoltaic energy are greater than the energy needed to make them. There is a slow convergeance of technologies which will have dramatic effects in the future. It is because of the lack of political will or ignorance that it will take longer than may be necessary. Large companies are unwilling to spend money because they are largely concerned with their return to be within months rather than years so it is left to the fringe to solve the issues.

 

Whether or not something llike a manhattan project will happen, it is clear that there is a need for some form of efficient, economical, and sustainable energy.

 

An example of a sustainable resource that has been used for thousands of years and can be managed for thousands to come; wood

[infamous]

Hi I'm new to this site and there seems to be a good few discussions :eek2:

 

I had to register to reply to UncleAl's post, because I think he may be misinformed on a few subjects.

 

I am anxious to see where this statement will take us. In any event, welcome to Hypography Tagred, I hope you enjoy all the debate and discussion. BTW I would give you high marks for that first post...............................enjoy

[damocles]

Hi I'm new to this site and there seems to be a good few discussions

 

I had to register to reply to UncleAl's post, because I think he may be misinformed on a few.....

 

By Tancred

 

 

Ummmmmm. I'm going to await reading the replies with interest.

[Skippy]

I had to register to reply to UncleAl's post, because I think he may be misinformed on a few subjects.

I'm with damocles... my theory is a comment like this is what inspired UncleAl's avatar.

[UncleAl]

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." The US burned the equivalent of 47 million bbl of oil today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Promises of a fairy dust future Eden don't cut it when somebody flips a lightswitch. Why don't yout ell us how much 47 million bbl of oil weigh?

 

An example of a sustainable resource that has been used for thousands of years and can be managed for thousands to come; wood

The spotted owl is an endangered species. No gene-geneered Franken-forests. No active pest management- toxic! No clear cutting! No cutting forests that suck up carbon dioxide. Wood is off-limits. No wood.

 

Firstly nanotechnology is something that is being and has being achieved

MIRACLE! Grantology. A nano-whatever is all surface area and no volume. Tell us how to run a machine whose power output is less than the surface tension of water. Dirt and wet seize them solid.

 

sustainable development is in no way Luddism

Do you have any idea how much energy the US uses/year? It has held reasonably steady at 60 bbl oil equiv/capita. 1 boe = 1700 kWhr-thermal. There are 290 million US folk or

 

1.74x10^10 boe/year, or

2.96x10^13 kWhr-thermal/year, or

1.065x10^20 joules/year, or...

 

...or the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2. Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae, git, or catch wind?

 

THEY LIED TO YOU. "Shut up and calculate," Richard Feynman.

 

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/lecture4.html

[erich]

Uncle Al is right, wood won't cut it. However I feel he gives short shift to the potential of quantum effects to PV and other energy conversion technologies. The dirt, grime and water hasn't seized up the digital revolution. " There is plenty of room at the bottom" Richard Feynman

 

Professor G. L. Kulcinski's paper shows just how important a new Manhattan project is.

Do the calculation of a billion Chinese with our oil thirst.

[damocles]

Why don't yout ell us how much 47 million bbl of oil weigh?

 

http://www.eppo.go.th/ref/UNIT-OIL.html

 

It varies by density and temperature, so I chose Kerosene.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

CONVERSION FACTORS FOR OIL

-----------------------------------------------------------------

At 86°F (30°C)

----------- Approximation -------------------

Liters Liters A.Gallons A.Barrels

Product per per per per

E.Ton M.Ton M.Ton M.Ton

-----------------------------------------------------------------

L.P.G 1,864 1,835 484.6 11.54

JP.4 1,355 1,333 352.4 8.39

Jet A-1 1,274 1,254 331.2 7.89

Premium 1,375 1,353 357.5 8.51

Regular 1,440 1,418 374.5 8.92

Kerosene 1,293 1,273 336.2 8.00

Gas Oil 1,197 1,177 311.2 7.41

Diesel Fuel 1,177 1,159 306.1 7.29

Fuel oil 80 CST 1,082 1,065 281.2 6.70

Fuel oil 180 CST 1,067 1,050 277.4 6.60

Fuel oil 230 CST 1,064 1,047 276.6 6.59

Fuel oil 280 CST 1,061 1,044 275.9 6.57

Bitumen 994 979 258.5 6.15

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

5,875,000 TONS more or less. I wouldn't be all that surprised that with all the mixes and grades of fuel if it were six to six and a half million tons or more.

 

Calculated another way;

 

PETROLEUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY VOLUME PER TON

----------------------------------------------

Degree Specific Barrels * Long tonne

API gravity per metric

tonne

----------------------------------------------

25 0.904 6.98 7.09

26 0.898 7.02 7.13

27 0.893 7.06 7.18

28 0.887 7.10 7.22

29 0.882 7.15 7.27

30 0.876 7.19 7.31

31 0.871 7.24 7.36

32 0.865 7.28 7.40

33 0.860 7.33 7.45

34 0.855 7.37 7.49

35 0.850 7.42 7.54

36 0.845 7.46 7.58

37 0.840 7.51 7.63

38 0.835 7.55 7.67

39 0.830 7.60 7.72

40 0.825 7.64 7.76

41 0.820 7.69 7.81

42 0.816 7.73 7.85

----------------------------------------------

* Approx. figures 60°F

 

Specific gravity = 141.5/131.5 + °API

 

6,412,005 metric tons based on a specific gravity value of 8.60 for the oil.

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Determining oil tonnage used depends on if you are specifying refined or crude?

 

If it is crude, then you still have problems. Pennsylvania crude, Texas crude and Saudi crude don't weigh the same by the barrel.

 

When you go into the millions of barrels those kilograms of difference per barrel per source pumped just add up.

[geokker]

I have no clue how much oil is left and whether it will last for another 60 years or 60 days. I do know that it is a limited resource. Eventually, we will have to switch to an alternate for all of our energy needs. I also know that there is no substitute for forward thinking preparedness and anticipation. So, we must make a concerted effort to explore alternate energy sources. This is all obvious to me but what is out there?

 

From a painfully unqualified perspective, I will list some possibilites for your delectation:

 

1. Solar power. On the ground this seems unlikely to meet the planets needs for power. Possibly, orbital collector and transit facilities may suffice, but it sounds difficult, costly and fragile.

 

2. Nuclear energy. This is tried and proven technology. It's relatively clean but further research and investment must be mobilized to increase efficiency, safety and ease of waste reprocessing.

 

3. Fusion energy. Sounds promising. This seems like the path governments are on. Potentially, it would provide near limitless clean power from negligible reactants. Costs are high but then, no cost is too high when we're talking about essential energy. It may never happen though.

 

4. Wind power. No way. This just isn't feasible in my opinion. It just can't scale. The energy required to make enough windmills would drain the planet of oil.

 

5. Wave power. This is like wind power, but getting closer to the source - cutting out the middle man. Every time I see a wave crashing I can feel the immense power behind it. It's a no brainer to harness that baby.

 

6. geothermal power. This sounds quite straightforward. Sink a pipe until you hit heat, pump down water, until it turns to steam which is piped up to push a turbine. The Earth is a big, churning mass of friction after all.

 

7. Gravitational power. It seems to me that the reason the planet is active is largely due to the huge gravitational influence of the moon. Its orbit needs to be utilized. Don't ask me how.

 

8. God power. As there seem to be so many religious types out there (still), I guess I can't discount God coming down and saving us all from a chilly, oil-less future. Perhaps through death? Maybe prayer itself will warm us?

[Tagred]

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." The US burned the equivalent of 47 million bbl of oil today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Promises of a fairy dust future Eden don't cut it when somebody flips a lightswitch. Why don't yout ell us how much 47 million bbl of oil weigh?

I dont understand what point you are trying to make. The point of sustainable development is that resources are used effectively and efficiently. Weight means absolutely nothing in these terms. The fact is that the energy resources we currently have cannot sustain human baing for an indefinate period of time. Of course, we dont need to worry about it now or for the next 50-75yrs or so, why should we, we will be in the ground.

 

The fact that oil reserves are limited, means that sometime in the future humans will have to find alternative cleaner technologies to solve the problem. None of the new technologies that may solve the problem will appear overnight, and probably not be economic for at least another couple of decades, couple that with the vested interests and lobbying of energy producing companies, it will take longer. When there are brownouts and blackouts such as you see in the American eastern seaboard, and when they become more common than not, then there will be moves towards finding these technologies. But why not do the work now of being able to have the ability to solve these issues before they become real major problems.

 

Like all technologies they have to start somewhere, and they will not be efficient enough at the beginning, but they will be. Almost all technologies improve and evolve through time, it is far better to plan than to be forced into it. Of course we could use nuclear technology, which pound for pound is 1million times more efficient than coal or oil. But then, do you want a nuclear waste facility in your back yard?

 

 

The spotted owl is an endangered species. No gene-geneered Franken-forests. No active pest management- toxic! No clear cutting! No cutting forests that suck up carbon dioxide. Wood is off-limits. No wood.

Clearly you do not know what sustainability is. Managed forests do not exclude fauna, nor should they. It would be appreciated if you could take the post within its context. Wood, is a good example of sustainability, it has zero net loss of carbon, indeed in some farms there is a net lowering of carbon to atmosphere. The cycle when managed correctly has little atmospheric impact. I used wood as an example of sustainability, in no way am I proporting that that should be used as an energy resource. You stated that sustainability is Luddism, care to explain how? Im sure people said exactly the same thing with the spinning jenny. Technologies move on, more effective and efficient systems developed. That is what sustainable development is partly about.

 

 

MIRACLE! Grantology. A nano-whatever is all surface area and no volume. Tell us how to run a machine whose power output is less than the surface tension of water. Dirt and wet seize them solid.

Yes it is. How would you propose to develop a technology that will have clear benefits? Surely we cannot just make a nano-bot to manipulate on the atomic scale from scratch? We have to start somewhere, and as it's developed more applications will be realised. I'm sure you would appreciate that without minimisation and downscaling that we would still be sitting at our desks using Coloussus to surf the net. Nanotechnology is being researched in biotechnology as well as electronic applications, it is achievable and given time will be done.

 

 

Do you have any idea how much energy the US uses/year? It has held reasonably steady at 60 bbl oil equiv/capita. 1 boe = 1700 kWhr-thermal. There are 290 million US folk or

 

1.74x10^10 boe/year, or

2.96x10^13 kWhr-thermal/year, or

1.065x10^20 joules/year, or...

 

...or the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2. Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae, git, or catch wind?

 

THEY LIED TO YOU. "Shut up and calculate," Richard Feynman.

 

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/lecture4.html

So? The USA is the world largest energy consumer and worlds largest waste producer. By developing nuclear fusion technologies, wind, wave power or any other cleaner technologies, the energy requirements could be easily fullfilled. What is going to happen to the USA when the reserves of oil in the Middle East, and southern US start to run dry? It is simply not sustainable, when its gone, its gone. Surely it would be better for the future to have something to turn to when the USA can no longer invade or economically strangle another country for its energy resources, but that's a different thread.

[Tagred]

I have no clue how much oil is left and whether it will last for another 60 years or 60 days. I do know that it is a limited resource. Eventually, we will have to switch to an alternate for all of our energy needs. I also know that there is no substitute for forward thinking preparedness and anticipation. So, we must make a concerted effort to explore alternate energy sources. This is all obvious to me but what is out there?

 

From a painfully unqualified perspective, I will list some possibilites for your delectation:

 

1. Solar power. On the ground this seems unlikely to meet the planets needs for power. Possibly, orbital collector and transit facilities may suffice, but it sounds difficult, costly and fragile.

efficiencies are increasing on a yearly basis. You can get approx. 60% energy conversion in some small cases at the moment. For a national use it is a way off yet to be viable

 

2. Nuclear energy. This is tried and proven technology. It's relatively clean but further research and investment must be mobilized to increase efficiency, safety and ease of waste reprocessing.

1million times the energy in coal per kilogram. Although I agree, waste could be an issue. Maybe good for short term use.

 

3. Fusion energy. Sounds promising. This seems like the path governments are on. Potentially, it would provide near limitless clean power from negligible reactants. Costs are high but then, no cost is too high when we're talking about essential energy. It may never happen though.

Exciting prospects, probably still 30yrs or so to go (if possible) but i believe it is something worth investigating, at least so we can prove that it is feasible or not.

 

4. Wind power. No way. This just isn't feasible in my opinion. It just can't scale. The energy required to make enough windmills would drain the planet of oil.

10% or UK's energy is derived from wind power. Which will be rising to 20% by 2015. Limited to certain geographical areas though, and not good for many places. FYI, currently 20% of UK's energy is derived from nuclear power.

 

5. Wave power. This is like wind power, but getting closer to the source - cutting out the middle man. Every time I see a wave crashing I can feel the immense power behind it. It's a no brainer to harness that baby.

Studies in the UK are delivering good results from wave power, but huge areas are needed. If it can work then I agree with you.

 

6. geothermal power. This sounds quite straightforward. Sink a pipe until you hit heat, pump down water, until it turns to steam which is piped up to push a turbine. The Earth is a big, churning mass of friction after all.

Already used in Iceland to generate electricity and hot water. The Icelanders do not have electric bills.

 

7. Gravitational power. It seems to me that the reason the planet is active is largely due to the huge gravitational influence of the moon. Its orbit needs to be utilized. Don't ask me how.

I would have no idea so wont comment on that.

 

8. God power. As there seem to be so many religious types out there (still), I guess I can't discount God coming down and saving us all from a chilly, oil-less future. Perhaps through death? Maybe prayer itself will warm us?

Apart from giving us a warm feeling inside, i think its pretty unlikely. The chap seems to like to drown us once in a while though :eek2:

[Skippy]

The spotted owl is an endangered species. No gene-geneered Franken-forests. No active pest management- toxic!

UncleAl, I can agree that wood is not a viable source of energy for many of the reasons you listed... but this one is nonsense. Cutting down trees is not the biggest factor affecting the spotted owl. Remember the pictures of spotted owls in Kmart signs after select cutting in Oregon was allowed? Something else is affecting the spottred owl, and most likely it is not man.

"Scientists are not sure what is causing the declines, but possible factors include invasion of the spotted owl's habitat by the barred owl, an aggressive cousin from Canada that often drives them off, Lint said. Habitat lost to past logging, as well as wildfires, climate changes and insect infestations are also factors, he said.

The plan also failed to provide the expected timber supply and replace lost timber jobs with jobs in small towns near federal forest lands as promised, said Thomas Quigley, director of the U.S. Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station.

 

"Many of the impacts were different than predicted," he said."

[geokker]

10% or UK's energy is derived from wind power.

 

The Icelanders do not have electric bills.

 

I find these hard to believe, what are your sources?