<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;energy&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Taking Another Look At Nuclear Energy...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09504712210/dailydirt-taking-another-look-nuclear-energy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09504712210/dailydirt-taking-another-look-nuclear-energy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Nuclear energy has been around for decades, but its safety and the safety of its radioactive waste have always been a political nightmare. Still, some researchers have been redesigning nuclear reactors to make them safer in many ways, but these newer designs have yet to be scaled up and used commercially. Maybe someday nuclear technology will be ubiquitous, but it'll likely take a long time before anyone is willing to embrace fission/fusion energy that doesn't come from the Sun.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/reactor-accelerator-hybrid-achie.html" href="http://bit.ly/12FnsT4">A European research reactor called Guinevere demonstrates the safety and benefits of a hybrid reactor-accelerator design.</a> This nuclear reactor design is an accelerator-driven system (ADS) and uses a particle accelerator so that its nuclear reactor can run without enough fissile material to generate a nuclear chain reaction (so all the nuclear reactions stop when the external particle accelerator stops). A bonus feature is that its radioactive waste material can be transmuted via the particle accelerator into elements with lower half-lives that may be more convenient to handle and store. [<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/reactor-accelerator-hybrid-achie.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUF8hp8CGjzbPwUGS-am6Q2o16DQ?docId=CNG.1394bcc9c0c6cb0d72b26ca852eb20f6.421" href="http://bit.ly/16CZQE0">Teenager Taylor Wilson has been building nuclear reactors for a few years already, and his current project is to build small, modular nuclear reactors capable of generating just 50-100 megawatts of electricity.</a> Wilson's reactors would create a more decentralized network of electricity generation, but that's a lot of NIMBY to overcome.... [<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUF8hp8CGjzbPwUGS-am6Q2o16DQ?docId=CNG.1394bcc9c0c6cb0d72b26ca852eb20f6.421">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-win-battle-to-halt-controversial-research-1.10823" href="http://bit.ly/109sSXN">Italian scientists have halted research on piezonuclear fission.</a> Low Energy Nuclear Reactions have been associated with Cold Fusion, so if there's any kind of non-classical fission/fusion going on, it may take extraordinary evidence to convince anyone of it. [<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-win-battle-to-halt-controversial-research-1.10823">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a> via StumbleUpon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09504712210/dailydirt-taking-another-look-nuclear-energy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09504712210/dailydirt-taking-another-look-nuclear-energy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/09504712210/dailydirt-taking-another-look-nuclear-energy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101209/09504712210</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Microorganisms For Biofuel Production</title>
<dc:creator>Joyce Hung</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/16300911997/dailydirt-microorganisms-biofuel-production.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/16300911997/dailydirt-microorganisms-biofuel-production.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In recent years, there has been increasing interest in biofuels due to growing concerns about global warming and rising oil prices. Biofuels are generally made by using chemicals, fermentation, and heat to break down the starches, sugars, and other molecules in plants to produce a fuel that can be used by vehicles. However, growing crops, making fertilizers and pesticides, and processing the plants into biofuel requires so much energy that it's questionable whether biofuels are really as environmentally friendly as they might seem on the surface. Plenty of research is already under way to figure out ways to make biofuel production more efficient with the help of microorganisms. Here are just a few examples.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429682/coal-eating-microbes-might-create-vast-amounts-of/" href="http://bit.ly/ZEvM41">Companies like Luca Technologies and Next Fuel are investigating the potential for microbial methane production from coal.</a> Their approach is to stimulate native microorganisms that feed on underground hydrocarbon deposits to produce more methane. This could make it possible to extract fuel from coal reserves that have been too expensive to mine. [<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429682/coal-eating-microbes-might-create-vast-amounts-of/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2013/Q1/understanding-termite-digestion-could-help-biofuels,-insect-control.html" href="http://bit.ly/13qCJL4">Researchers at Purdue University are studying how termite digestion could help improve biofuel production.</a> They found that protists, which live in the termite's gut, may play an important role in the insect's digestion of woody material. Further research could lead to finding enzymes that could one day be used to help improve biofuel production. [<a href="http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2013/Q1/understanding-termite-digestion-could-help-biofuels,-insect-control.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Biofuel-created-by-explosive-technology-4191168.php" href="http://bit.ly/XnUiGB">Researchers at UC Berkeley have created a biodiesel fuel using a fermentation process that was once used to make explosives in World War I.</a> The process uses a bacterium called <i>Clostridium acetobutylicum</i> (also known as the "Weizmann Organism") to ferment sugar from various sources -- including corn, sugar cane, molasses, woody biomass, or plant biomass -- and produces acetone, butanol, and ethanol. The fermentation products are then converted into a mix of hydrocarbons that are similar to those in diesel fuel. The resulting fuel burns as well as petroleum-based fuel and has more energy per gallon than ethanol. [<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Biofuel-created-by-explosive-technology-4191168.php">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/bioengineered_marine_algae_expands_environments_where_biofuels_can_be_produced" href="http://bit.ly/YCGpS2">Researchers at UC San Diego have demonstrated for the first time that marine algae can also be used to produce biofuels like fresh water algae.</a> They genetically engineered the marine alga <i>Dunaliella tertiolecta</i> to produce five different enzymes that could be used to convert biomass to fuel. Their finding suggests that algal biofuels could also be produced in the ocean, in the brackish water of tidelands, or even on otherwise unusable agricultural land with high salt content in the soil. [<a href="http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/bioengineered_marine_algae_expands_environments_where_biofuels_can_be_produced">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/16300911997/dailydirt-microorganisms-biofuel-production.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/16300911997/dailydirt-microorganisms-biofuel-production.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/16300911997/dailydirt-microorganisms-biofuel-production.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101123/16300911997</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Nuclear Power Won't Go Away</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100829/22114510811/dailydirt-nuclear-power-wont-go-away.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100829/22114510811/dailydirt-nuclear-power-wont-go-away.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Someday, the world will run out of fossil fuels to burn. But maybe we can avoid running out of fossil fuels by figuring out another energy source, so we won't need to burn hydrocarbons to produce electricity. Nuclear fission is just one possible energy source that could potentially replace coal, oil and natural gas entirely -- but there are some obvious drawbacks such as long-term radioactivity from its waste and the possibility of creating more nuclear weapons. Nuclear technology keeps moving forward (whether or not we've figured out how to deal with WMDs), and here are just a few examples.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.nature.com/news/laser-plant-offers-cheap-way-to-make-nuclear-fuel-1.10945" href="http://bit.ly/McuHba">Separating uranium-235 from the uranium-238 is a difficult process, but if there were an easier way to do it, nuclear proliferation could be a much bigger problem.</a> Cheaper nuclear energy might solve a bunch of the world's problems, but it could also create a few new ones, too. [<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/laser-plant-offers-cheap-way-to-make-nuclear-fuel-1.10945">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.voanews.com/content/kenya-eyes-nuclear-power-development-121937259/158116.html" href="http://bit.ly/McuyVd">Kenya is looking to develop its own nuclear energy program at the the University of Nairobi.</a> It's an ambitious goal, but Kenya wants to create a sustainable, reliable and affordable source of energy for its economy to become a middle-income country by 2030. [<a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/kenya-eyes-nuclear-power-development-121937259/158116.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/st_processnukes/" href="http://bit.ly/Me4JKJ">The ability to turn enriched uranium into weapons isn't a one-way trip -- about 20,000 of Russia's nuclear missiles will be turned into nuclear fuel for US power plants by 2013.</a> A 1993 agreement between Russia and the USA has been turning 500 metric tons of Soviet weapons-grade uranium into electricity for America's cities. [<a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/st_processnukes/">url</a>]</li>
</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100829/22114510811/dailydirt-nuclear-power-wont-go-away.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100829/22114510811/dailydirt-nuclear-power-wont-go-away.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100829/22114510811/dailydirt-nuclear-power-wont-go-away.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100829/22114510811</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 May 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Fusion Without A Star</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/15131218029/dailydirt-fusion-without-star.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/15131218029/dailydirt-fusion-without-star.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Man-made fusion reactors always seem to be 30-50 years away, even though the sun fuses atoms all the time, mocking us with its immense generation of free fusion energy. Sure, there have been a couple of <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_yup_i_built_a_nuclear_fusion_reactor.html">wunderkinds</a> who've <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_T._Farnsworth">built fusion reactors</a> in their spare time, but the trick is generating a surplus of energy -- not just fusing atoms for fun. Here are a few interesting links on inertial confinement fusion.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-nears-crucial-milestone-1.10175" href="http://bit.ly/GHfwX2">The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is approaching its break-even point for generating as much energy as it consumes.</a> This $3.5 billion facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory shoots lasers at an ignition target of hydrogen isotopes to get the nuclei to fuse and release energy, and it might look more promising than the ITER's tokamak facilities. However, the NIF is more of a proof of concept, not a practical design for generating commercial amounts of energy. [<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-nears-crucial-milestone-1.10175">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14842720" href="http://bbc.in/GPoXFk">Two UK-based organizations are interested in commercializing the NIF's fusion reactor and creating a self-sustaining fusion reaction.</a> Such a reactor would have to go through more than 10 fuel pellets each second, but the NIF facility has only burned through about 300 since it started operating in 2009. [<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14842720">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24bclivermore.html" href="http://nyti.ms/GIhNW0">A watchdog group, Tri-Valley CAREs, argues that the NIF should be regulated before it releases more radioactive particles like tritium into the environment.</a> The Department of Energy says that radioactive releases have been below the EPA's safety limits, but Tri-Valley CAREs is concerned about the effects of radioactive materials accumulating around Livermore, CA. [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24bclivermore.html">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To discover more stuff on alternative energy, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:294" href="http://bit.ly/gpue01">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:294">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

As always, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/15131218029/dailydirt-fusion-without-star.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/15131218029/dailydirt-fusion-without-star.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/15131218029/dailydirt-fusion-without-star.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120307/15131218029</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: No Refrigeration Necessary...?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03592716323/dailydirt-no-refrigeration-necessary.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03592716323/dailydirt-no-refrigeration-necessary.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For centuries, people didn't have convenient refrigeration for storing food for long periods of time. Nowadays, we take refrigerators for granted and keep things in them even when it's not necessary. Here are just a few cool examples of ways to avoid eating spoiled food.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grosser_and_his_sustainable_fridge.html" href="http://bit.ly/A5TtvE">There's a prototype for a sustainable portable refrigerator for small volume containers that doesn't require electricity.</a> It still needs to be heated up in some way for the thermodynamics of it to work, but it's an interesting self-contained device for remote locations... or for camping trips? [<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grosser_and_his_sustainable_fridge.html">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/saving-food-fridge-it-will-taste-better-may-even-last-longer-and-reduce-your-energy-bills.html" href="http://bit.ly/yCBrEL">Some nicely-designed containers could help folks store food without refrigeration while still keeping food fresh.</a> Storing eggs at room temperature seems really strange to most Americans. [<a href="http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/saving-food-fridge-it-will-taste-better-may-even-last-longer-and-reduce-your-energy-bills.html">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.rolexawards.com/en/the-laureates/mohammedbahabba-home.jsp" href="http://bit.ly/HmMwm9">Mohammed Bah Abba won a Rolex Award for re-discovering a pot-in-pot refrigeration device (aka a zeer) that can keep food cool by taking advantage of evaporative cooling.</a> A zeer costs about $1 to make and is just a couple of nested clay pots with wet sand between them. [<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110717142743/http://www.rolexawards.com/en/the-laureates/mohammedbahabba-home.jsp">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more food-related links, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102" href="http://bit.ly/iaJVJd">check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03592716323/dailydirt-no-refrigeration-necessary.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03592716323/dailydirt-no-refrigeration-necessary.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03592716323/dailydirt-no-refrigeration-necessary.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111012/03592716323</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Better Batteries</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/17562714190/dailydirt-better-batteries.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/17562714190/dailydirt-better-batteries.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Storing lots of energy conveniently is one of the world's greatest challenges. Batteries have improved a lot over the years, but not quite at the same rate as the electronics they power. There are a number of battery research projects, and here are just a few.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://inhabitat.com/portugese-scientists-create-water-powered-paper-battery/" href="http://bit.ly/iIkyS7">Batteries that can be recharged from humidity in the air sound awesomely impossible.</a> Still, people are working on them... [<a href="http://inhabitat.com/portugese-scientists-create-water-powered-paper-battery/">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/flow-batteries-0606.html" href="http://bit.ly/iyh5Md">Flow batteries can be quickly recharged by refueling them.</a> New designs promise an almost ten-fold improvement in energy storage density. [<a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/flow-batteries-0606.html">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/energy-and-environment/news/uea-discovery-could-lead-to-creation-of-microbial-fuel-cells/1008778.article" href="http://bit.ly/mj8LLT">Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have plenty of room for improvement before they'll be used in commercially-available devices.</a> And now, we know a bit more about the proteins that make MFCs possible. [<a href="http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/energy-and-environment/news/uea-discovery-could-lead-to-creation-of-microbial-fuel-cells/1008778.article">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37607/" href="http://bit.ly/lDEZxK">Lithium batteries are getting better and better -- gaining over 1,000 recharge cycles and increasing energy densities.</a> If only batteries followed Moore's Law... [<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37607/">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more stuff on alternative energy, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:294" href="http://bit.ly/gpue01">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:294">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

As always, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/17562714190/dailydirt-better-batteries.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/17562714190/dailydirt-better-batteries.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/17562714190/dailydirt-better-batteries.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110506/17562714190</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Feb 2011 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Wind &#038; Water Power</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110120/11050812744/dailydirt-wind-water-power.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110120/11050812744/dailydirt-wind-water-power.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's generally a worthwhile goal to diversify -- putting all your eggs in one basket is almost asking for trouble.  So it's nice to see folks working on different ways to generate electricity that don't involve burning fossil fuels or dealing with the hassle of radioactive materials (not that there's anything wrong with that).  There are a bunch of really interesting wind power and hydro power projects going on, but some can scale better than others.  And some of these projects just look cool.  
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://lablog.engin.umich.edu/2011/01/shark-inspires-artist-to-build-new.html" href="http://bit.ly/ijhMAu">A Michigan artist is testing out a hydro-powered generator that's modeled after a basking shark's mouth.</a>  This generator mimics the shark's mouth to help extract energy more efficiently... technically "infringing" on nature for this patent-pending design.  [<a href="http://lablog.engin.umich.edu/2011/01/shark-inspires-artist-to-build-new.html">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://inhabitat.com/vibro-wind-piezoelectric-pads-harness-wind-energy-without-turbines/" href="http://bit.ly/fUodek">Arrays of piezoelectric cells could harness wind/water energy without using a turbine.</a>  Capturing vibrational energy, it's silent and doesn't kill birds/bats.  And maybe analogous technology could be put on fault lines to get some electricity out of earthquakes....  [<a href="http://inhabitat.com/vibro-wind-piezoelectric-pads-harness-wind-energy-without-turbines/">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26964/?a=f" href="http://bit.ly/haejnb">Deepwater Wind has a $4-5 Billion plan to put a wind farm about 20 miles off the coast of Massachusetts.</a>  Its electricity would cost about twice that from a fossil-fuel power plant, but about half that of photovoltaic solar.  Maybe someday, electricity branded "CO2-free" will be worth the premium? [<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26964/?a=f">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26679/" href="http://bit.ly/hG22aT">Underwater turbines could generate power without building a dam along the Mississippi River.</a>  As with all hydro-electric projects, though, there are still concerns about how turbines might affect wildlife and shipping regulations. [<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26679/">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more stuff on alternative energy, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:294" href="http://bit.ly/gpue01">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:294">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

As always, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110120/11050812744/dailydirt-wind-water-power.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110120/11050812744/dailydirt-wind-water-power.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110120/11050812744/dailydirt-wind-water-power.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110120/11050812744</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Peak Coal And Other Energy-Related Stories</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101213/18545712259/dailydirt-peak-coal-other-energy-related-stories.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101213/18545712259/dailydirt-peak-coal-other-energy-related-stories.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Nuclear fusion technologies always seem to be about 30 years away from practicality. Meanwhile, cheap fossil fuels keep getting an extended life span.  But it looks like the predictions of Peak Coal may be kicking in again -- though, new mining techniques might still throw a wrench into the estimates.  How many times can the "peak oil/coal/etc" folks cry wolf?  

<blockquote>
<li> <a href="http://bit.ly/fZ0Ilx">Coal prices are on the rise -- according to a scientist.  So maybe getting a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking isn't such a bad thing.</a> I'm just waiting for "Cash4Coal" infomercials now...   [<a href="http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/12/13/energy-policies-assuming-a-future-with-cheap-coal-should-be-reassessed/">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/hIM65M">Curious to know what Chernobyl looks like now?  Take a tour!</a> The Ukraine plans to start selling tickets to see one of the worst nuclear disasters -- so pre-order your tickets now, before they're all gone. [<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=132021238">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/ehcKPz">Really small lithium batteries could help improve battery designs.</a> If we can understand how anodes degrade, that bunny with the drum will really keep going and going (and we'll be able to store energy more conveniently). [<a href="https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/world%E2%80%99s-smallest-battery/">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/edhZE0">Here's what Peak Coal/Oil/Gas looks like in a graph.</a> Remember to revisit this graph in 2030 to see how accurate its predictions were. [<a href="http://images-3.vizworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/transparency-wordenergysupply.jpg">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/gqL0QC">The European Parliament rejected a fusion financing plan for Iter.</a> Achieving controlled fusion in the 2020's might not happen, but no one is really surprised by the news.  [<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12007965">url</a>]
</li> 
</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101213/18545712259/dailydirt-peak-coal-other-energy-related-stories.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101213/18545712259/dailydirt-peak-coal-other-energy-related-stories.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101213/18545712259/dailydirt-peak-coal-other-energy-related-stories.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101213/18545712259</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:21:29 PST</pubDate>
<title>Will Bloom Energy Live Up To The Hype?</title>
<dc:creator>ITInnovation</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100224/1755168294.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100224/1755168294.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last Sunday, <a href="http://www.bloomenergy.com">Bloom Energy</a> was <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n&#038;tag=contentMain;contentBody">covered by <i>60 Minutes</i></a> for developing a fuel cell technology that can produce cleaner energy more efficiently from a variety of fuels.  The Bloom Box promises to deliver reliable electrical power to data centers as well as homes, without transmitting power over long distances, since its "energy servers" can be located where the power is needed.  After 8 years of development, Bloom Energy has emerged from its startup stealth-mode with 100kW generators that are already operating at Google and eBay campuses, providing electricity at prices in the <a href="http://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/2010/02/is-bloom-energy-a-better-place-redux/">$0.08/kWh to $0.10/kWh range</a> (average retail electricity costs about $0.11/kWh).  According to the press releases, five "parking spot"-sized Bloom Boxes power about 15% of one of eBay's campuses, and Google's Larry Page says that he looks forward to being able to power a whole data center.. <i>someday</i>.
<br /><br />
The <i>60 Minutes</i> piece hinted that Bloom Energy could be a flop like the Segway -- since both Segway and Bloom Energy <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/24/doerr-bloom-energy-google-ipo/">share Kleiner Perkins as a backer</a>.  Beyond that, though, the amount of skeptical analysis for Bloom Energy seems a bit lacking.  The story of a secret lab creating a solution to the world's energy problems is a great fiction.  But the reality is likely far less inspiring.  Plenty of others <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10458980-64.html">point out</a> the reliability and cost issues for using a technology that hasn't yet been around for a decade and takes about 5 years (give or take a couple years) to pay for itself from savings in energy efficiency.  A 100kW system costs about $750,000 -- so it's a sizable upfront investment for a company to adopt.  Additionally, while the system <i>can</i> run on a variety of fuels, Bloom Boxes are currently <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/bloom-energy-bloom-box-fuel-cell-announcement.php">using natural gas</a>, which is still a fossil fuel with all the associated drawbacks -- even if the power is generated more efficiently.  
<br /><br />
Ultimately, more competition for generating clean power benefits all energy-intensive businesses.  And as some observers note, these Bloom Boxes may help augment other energy technologies -- such as wind or solar -- for more consistent and reliable alternative energy.  But there might need to be a much clearer advantage to installing Bloom Energy's off-the-grid generators.  Certainly, Bloom Energy has done a great job of getting lots of attention for its technology, but it hasn't proven that fuel cells will revolutionize the economics of energy production.  In fact, more efficient use of fossil fuels may actually <a href="http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/snov07.pdf">delay</a> our move away from non-renewable fuels, meaning Bloom would fall short of the hype in more than one way.  Instead of a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuel-based energy, it has so far only delivered a somewhat expensive new way to continue using natural gas.
<br /><br />
In the end, though, this demonstrates how true innovation is almost always an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080103/152737.shtml">ongoing process rather than a "flash of genius."</a>  Time and time again we hear about amazing breakthroughs coming out of some secret proprietary lab -- but when they're actually revealed, the reality is just another marginal improvement.  It's what happens next that's really important.  Bloom is getting all sorts of hype for doing something revolutionary, but the result appears just kind of ordinary, at this point.  The real question is: can it actually continue the process of innovation to become something that lives up to the hype?  It's that process that's really important, not the initial concept.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100224/1755168294.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100224/1755168294.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100224/1755168294.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>off-the-grid</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100224/1755168294</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:30:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Smart TVs Know When You Look Away</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0401426716.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0401426716.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been a lot of talk these days about how the big flat-screen TVs that have become quite popular are also energy hogs (or, as some say, "the SUVs of the TV world").  One interesting concept to deal with this is to use facial recognition software to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/8323077.stm" target="_blank">fade out the picture when the viewer is not watching</a>.  So, if you just have the TV on in the background, it doesn't suck up all that energy on the picture, but (in theory) the second you look up at the screen, the picture comes back.  Of course, in the past, when we've talked about experiments to put cameras or monitoring equipment into TVs, it tends to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080320/171005601.shtml">freak people out</a> a bit, and you could easily see the same technology being used for monitoring purposes.  Still, it is a creative idea, if it actually works.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0401426716.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0401426716.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0401426716.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>energy-saving</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091029/0401426716</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:37:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>It's Not Just The Entertainment Industry Facing An Economic Upheaval</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090817/1817355908.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090817/1817355908.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ People often ask why we focus on the entertainment industry so much around here, and one of the points I've tried to make is that what's happening in the entertainment industry is nothing but a precursor to what's going to happen in almost every industry out there, as new technologies come about that change the fundamental economics that their old business models relied on.  Healthcare? Packaged goods?  Food? Financial services? All may be facing similar issues before you know it, and having a clear understanding of what went right and wrong in the entertainment industry will hopefully help those industries avoid making the same mistakes (they can make new ones instead!).
<br /><br />
Another industry where this is already starting to happen is energy.  In a discussion on HP's datacenter efforts, there's a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/14/hewlett-packard-datacenter-technology-cio-network-energy.html" target="_new">quick discussion of how the energy industry is facing the same "dematerialization" threat as the music business</a>:
<blockquote><i>
But ultimately, the goal is making the world lighter, also called "dematerialization." Information technology can help replace energy-intensive and carbon-heavy methods--with basic materials, business processes or entire business models. Think of how the digital transformation has completely redefined the production and distribution of music.
<br /><br />
Extend that model more broadly: By 2012, all of the servers in the world will use as much power as was used by all of Mexico in 2007. Breakthroughs in photonics allow us to use light instead of copper wire to transmit data. Not only can we reduce the use of natural resources, we can dramatically reduce energy consumption, taking another step forward from the work we've done at Wynyard.
</i></blockquote>
While it may not seem to impact people as directly, I'd argue that what eventually happens in those other industries will have an impact far greater than anything that happens in the entertainment industry -- so we might as well look deep into what's happening to understand it now, before we create a much bigger mess in other industries.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090817/1817355908.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090817/1817355908.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090817/1817355908.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hello,-energy...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090817/1817355908</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:40:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Latest Bizarre Proposal: Save Democracy By Taxing Energy To Make It Too Expensive To Blog</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080824/1723152077.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080824/1723152077.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Okay, we see all sorts of crackpot ideas and theories show up from time to time, but it's not often that you get one quite this bizarre published in a publication quite as respectable as the Washington Post.  Yet here is the venerable Washington Post with an op-ed from the lawyer, Dusty Horwitt, for a "nonprofit environmental group" in Washington DC complaining that blogging and other types of internet content are somehow a drag on democracy, and the solution is for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/22/AR2008082202396_pf.html" target="_new">the government to raise <i>energy</i> taxes</a> such that it would make it too expensive for the riffraff to continue owning computers with internet connections, thereby reducing this flood of information.  Yes, I think he's serious.  There is,  I will admit, a chance that this is pure satire.  If so, I'll just tip my hat and admit that I was fooled -- but let's move forward on the assumption this is serious.
<br /><br />
There are so many troubling aspects to this op-ed that it's difficult to know where to start.  First, he brings up the classic complaint that the internet today is producing "too much information."  Apparently, he believes that all this <i>bad</i> information somehow prevents <i>good</i> information from being distributed.  Good information, by the way, is apparently information published in traditional newspapers.  He uses a troubling interpretation of a few questionable stats to establish this -- assuming that because some people spend less time on various online sites, they're somehow not getting access to the good information that they need.  He doesn't seem to consider that websites and the ease of publishing now allows people to get access to <i>more</i> good information that it was difficult to come by in the past.
<br /><br />
He then goes on to suggest that true social movements have only happened because of the <i>scarcity</i> of broadcast media options, which somehow forced everyone to hear only a single message.  This is, apparently, a good thing -- because obviously the big professional media only reports on the important stuff, whereas everyone else only reports on bad stuff.  He honestly makes the claim that the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened today, because all of these other media would have drowned out the issue.  It was only because a few newspapers decided that it was important to cover it -- and because people had nowhere else to get distracted -- that people actually made civil rights an issue.  Today, I guess, we'd all just go back to watching hamsters hit each other on YouTube.
<br /><br />
So, the problem, as he has described it is that all these damn people are <i>talking</i> to each other online, rather than <i>listening</i> to what the big important "good" media has to tell us.  He says that the answer isn't necessarily to tax the technology of production -- though he considers this -- but to tax <i>energy</i>.  He recognizes that it takes energy to use a computer and connect to the internet, so if it's much more expensive, he believes that plenty of folks would give up talking, and go back to being passive consumers of what the big professional media says is important today.  As a side benefit (no, seriously), he points out that this increasing cost of energy would probably make it too expensive to offshore jobs.  These would be the same jobs that have helped create new jobs and grow the economy (he leaves that part out).  It's a wonder his proposal hasn't already been turned into legislation.  Who wouldn't support a policy of higher energy costs to shut up the riff raff and make Americans have to pay more for just about everything?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080824/1723152077.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080824/1723152077.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080824/1723152077.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>say-what-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080824/1723152077</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:29:31 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why Politicians Forcing People To Change Lightbulbs Is A Bad Idea</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071224/175813.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071224/175813.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this month, we pointed out that Ireland had joined <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070220/113025.shtml">Australia</a> in setting a date for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/021827.shtml">banning</a> incandescent lightbulbs.  There had been talk about the US following suit, and now it (almost) has, approving legislation that would <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/22light.html?ex=1356152400&#038;en=a3b53c88cf102844&#038;ei=5090&#038;partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss">phase out inefficient bulbs</a> by 2012, such as the incandescents that most people still use.  Once again, though, we have to point out how counterproductive a move like this seems.  Already, more and more people were moving to more efficient bulbs naturally, as they realized how much money they actually saved with them.  For those who complained about the type of light given off by the fluorescents, that just gave more incentives for the makers of CFLs to make the light better match incandescent bulbs.  The competition also gave more incentives to make CFLs cheaper and even more efficient, as well as coming up with ways to make the (already seriously <a href="http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp">overhyped</a>) worries about mercury, less of an issue.  However, if politicians take away the competition from incandescents, it suddenly gives the makers of CFLs a lot less incentive to come up with these kinds of innovations and breakthroughs.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071224/175813.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071224/175813.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071224/175813.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>taking-away-natural-incentives</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071224/175813</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:55:41 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Many Irish Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/021827.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/021827.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ American politicians have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070913/100319.shtml">toying</a> with such legislation for a while, and Australian politicians have already <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070220/113025.shtml">approved</a> similar legislation, but it appears that Irish politicians are in something of a rush to <a href="http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204702457">ban incandescent lightbulbs</a>.  New legislation would ban the sale of the traditional lightbulbs as of January 2009 -- basically just one year.  The Australian plan, that was approved earlier this year, would phase out the bulbs by 2010.  While we can understand the basic reasoning, it's still unclear why a full ban is really necessary.  Fluorescent bulbs keep getting cheaper and cheaper (and better and better in quality) than incandescent bulbs.  They last so much longer and use so much less energy that it won't be long until most people voluntarily move to fluorescents, without any unnecessary ban on incandescents.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/021827.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/021827.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/021827.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-not-a-joke</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071211/021827</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:45:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Another Big Energy Company Playing Video Games With Climate Change</title>
<dc:creator>Daniel DiPasquo</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/153632.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/153632.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As posted today on <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/11/simcity-adds-global.html">BoingBoing</a>, the upcoming release of <i>SimCity Societies</i> <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1571531/20071010/index.jhtml"; title="'Sim City' Partners With Big Oil To Build Brave New 'Societies'">asks game players to consider how their city-building choices affect (virtual) climate change</a>. Upping the ante on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070911/112153&#038;threaded=true"; title="Big Energy Company Makes Small Effort To Go Green">Chevron's online game</a> Energyville, <i>Societies</i> was developed in collaboration with BP, nee British Petroleum. By piggybacking on the success of the SimCity franchise, BP will gain access to a much larger audience than Chevron's strategy of hoping users find its standalone game.  While their stated goal of raising awareness of climate change issues and energy alternatives is admirable, BP's in-game branding smacks more of marketing than of educating.  The real missed opportunity, however, would be if BP just uses the game to talk <i>at</i> players, even if what they have to say is informative.  The SimCity community is one of the oldest and biggest "connected" communities around, and the very nature of the game brings together millions of individuals who enjoy solving problems.  Rather than creating a glorified brochure, BP should leverage their participation in the game to foster a conversation between the company and individuals.  That could mean allowing players to provide feedback on their experiences with in-game climate change or even (at the player's discretion) sending back entire game-play sequences that could be
 compiled and dissected by the company. BP, which faces changing realities of the energy industry, would do well to consider that they might learn more by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060920/195703.shtml">listening</a> to their customers than by telling their customers what the company already thinks.  No such intent is obvious from what BP is saying about the game, but maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/153632.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/153632.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/153632.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>please-don't-blow-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071011/153632</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:32:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Australia May Ban Plasma And LCD TVs Over Energy Concerns</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071010/171139.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071010/171139.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Australian politicians are clearly concerned about energy consumption.  Earlier this year, they were among the first to look to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070220/113025.shtml">ban</a> the incandescent bulb in favor of fluorescent bulbs.  Now it looks like they're getting ready to take on televisions.  New regulations may end up effectively  <a href="http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/10/2055587.htm">banning both plasma and LCD TV screens as energy hogs</a> (found via <a href="http://www.therawfeed.com/2007/10/australia-may-ban-power-hungry-plasma.html">The Raw Feed</a>).  We all know that these big screen TVs are the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050615/1722255_F.shtml">SUVs</a> of the electricity world, but does that really mean they should be banned completely?  There are definitely efforts under way to make the systems more energy efficient, and many buyers are certainly aware of these issues (or they are as soon as they get their electricity bills).  If anything, this seems like the sort of problem that works itself out without the need for the government to step in and force folks back into the world of big bulky TVs with (gasp!) small screens. <b>Update</b>: As noted in the comments, the Australian gov't has come out to say that a ban on plasma and LCD TVs <a href="http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/11/2056313.htm">is greatly exaggerated</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071010/171139.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071010/171139.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071010/171139.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-replace-them-with-flourescents</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071010/171139</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Many Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb? We'll Find Out Next Month</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070913/100319.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070913/100319.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The environment continues to be a hot-button political issue, as it presents a chance for politicians to score some easy points with the public by mandating all sorts of new laws and restrictions to prove their green credentials. But this political grandstanding overshadows the fact that many green or clean technologies <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070525/122435.shtml">offer economic benefits</a> to those who use them -- for instance, making facilities more energy-efficient isn't about companies just wanting to be nicer to the planet, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070510/090042.shtml">it's about cost savings</a> too. One example of this in the consumer realm is fluorescent lightbulbs. Despite their higher upfront cost, their longer life and lower power consumption offers substantial savings over traditional incandescent bulbs. Given these cost savings (as well as the ongoing improvement in the bulbs' quality and decrease in price), it would seem to be a matter of time before fluorescent bulbs will become more popular and they push incandescents out of the market. But that <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070131/175720.shtml">hasn't stopped</a> politicians from all over to push for laws <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070220/113025.shtml">banning or phasing out incandescent bulbs</a>, and it now appears that the US Congress <a href="http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&#038;etMailToID=1773624623">will add such legislation</a> to a wide-ranging energy bill that's expected to be voted on in October. The legislation would begin phasing out incandescents in 2012, and then by 2020, would call for lighting standards that could be met only by compact fluorescent bulbs or ones with equivalent efficiency. Lighting manufacturers aren't happy with the timetable, saying it's too quick, and add that they're exploring several different technologies to improve the efficiency of lighting, including more efficient incandescent bulbs, new types of halogen lamps and LEDs. It would certainly seem that the market will sort this issue out on its own, as technology improves and more consumers become aware of the cost savings that fluorescents and other types of bulbs can offer. But it would also seem that the brownie points on offer are too hard to refuse for politicians who want to make it look like they're making a difference to the environment.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070913/100319.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070913/100319.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070913/100319.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bright-idea</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070913/100319</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:34:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Big Energy Company Makes Small Effort To Go Green</title>
<dc:creator>Daniel DiPasquo</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/112153.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/112153.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As big energy companies jump into the green tech <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070416/024216.shtml">gold rush</a>, some of them have faced criticism that their efforts amount to little more than a cosmetic makeover.  Chevron's recent release of an online game in which <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5108291.html">players are asked to tackle the energy demands of a virtual city</a> does little to soothe such critics.  Chevron was beaten to the punch by Starbucks, of all companies, <a href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/04/10/starbucks-launches-green-game-includes-csr-feedback-tool/">who launched a similarly themed online game back in April</a>.  Both companies state their aim to increase awareness of energy issues and encourage participation in the search for solutions.  Judging by their investment of creativity into these games, however -- Starbucks' "Planet Green Game" is both more fun and more informative than "Energyville" -- the energy company has been soundly beaten on their own turf by the coffee company (even then, Starbucks' game won't be mistaken as much fun or brilliantly informative any time soon).   Chevron appears to have realized that video games can be a useful tool to reach the upcoming generation of their customers and investors; it so happens that it is also this game-playing generation that will face the environmental, security, and economic problems related to energy demand.  Unfortunately, Chevron's half-baked game is unlikely to generate any real dialogue, and, for critics, it certainly fails to demonstrate a serious commitment by the company to solving these problems.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/112153.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/112153.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/112153.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>better-than-nothing?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070911/112153</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>City Sends Spy Planes Out To Determine If Your Home Is Wasting Energy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070904/010751.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070904/010751.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that not everyone <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070827/022206.shtml">realizes</a> how wasteful they are of energy resources.  However, apparently one city in the UK went to rather extreme measures to make that point clear to residents in the city.  It <a href="http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2007/09/dig_this_the_ci.html">hired a spy plane to fly over the city</a> and take heat loss photos across the entire city.  The photos were then matched to a city map, displaying which houses were leaking the most heat at the time the spy plane passed over.  Eventually, the entire map was <a href="http://www.seeit.co.uk/haringey/Map.cfm">put online</a> so everyone could see which buildings were wasting the most energy.  What's unclear is whether or not these heat maps convinced anyone to actually do anything (or if it just freaked people out).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070904/010751.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070904/010751.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070904/010751.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>only-trying-to-help</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070904/010751</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Area Energy Prices Influence Data Center Locations</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/114946.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/114946.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been a lot of interest lately in ways for data centers to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070510/090042.shtml">reduce their energy consumption and environmental footprint</a> and by extension save money.  Energy considerations are particularly important for companies like Microsoft and Google, which are both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070628/074638.shtml">building massive data centers</a> all around the country.  A breakdown of <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/Aug/13/energy_prices_state_by_state.html">state-by-state energy costs</a> gives some insight into how these companies are selecting their locations.  North Carolina, where Google is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/095746.shtml">breaking ground on a new location</a>, has seen a year-over-year decrease in the price of commercial energy, putting it in the top third of all states (Google also was given tax incentives by the state to locate there).  Oklahoma has seen a rather precipitous drop in energy costs as well, so it's not surprising that <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/05/google_sun_rackable/">Google is also building a site there</a>.  Energy prices also influenced <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/Apr/10/microsofts_chrapaty_were_scaling_big-time.html">Microsoft's decision to build in Washington state</a>, which comes in at #10 on the list. Historically, states have tried to attract technology investments by offering tax incentives and promoting the education level of their citizens.  In the future, they may also wish to tout the level of competition in their energy markets.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/114946.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/114946.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/114946.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-cost-of-juice</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070813/114946</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:24:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Data Center Outage Puts Spotlight On Power Systems</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/072812.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/072812.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This week's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070724/150454.shtml">outage of a major San Francisco data center</a> has prompted a lot of discussion about the tech industry's massive energy requirements, and whether or not the existing energy infrastructure will continue to prove satisfactory.  Although we blamed excessive hubris for the crash, some are <a href="http://earth2tech.com/2007/07/26/is-pge-fiddling-while-the-grid-burns/">pointing fingers at the utility PG&#038;E</a>, for letting the underlying power outage happen.  Of course, this doesn't explain why 365 Main's extensive energy backup system failed to kick in as it was supposed to.  Either way, it's likely that continued investments into energy systems are in order.  IBM has been investing in technology that will <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070510/090042.shtml">reduce the energy demands of data centers</a>, but the trend is helping low-tech firms as well: yesterday, engine maker Cummins reported strong earnings, due in part to the <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/Jul/27/cummins_shares_buck_wall_street_tide.html">sale of generators to data centers</a>.  All of this is further evidence that tech firms are increasingly forced to get down and dirty with tangible, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070628/074638.shtml">physical goods</a> in order to stay competitive.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/072812.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/072812.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070727/072812.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-other-grid</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070727/072812</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:01:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Solar Power Wanted ASAP</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070716/073502.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070716/073502.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A new report put out by the US petroleum industry warns that conventional energy sources <a href="http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&#038;etMailToID=65996226">will not be able to keep up</a> with rising demand over the next 25 years.  As such, the high energy prices that we're seeing today could stick around.  Stark warnings such as this one aren't particularly uncommon, although not all studies are so pessimistic.  Still, it's forecasts like this that are driving the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/155600.shtml">high level of investment into alternative energy</a>.  However, despite all of the enthusiasm over it, solar energy <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html?ex=1342238400&#038;en=0cfb915795c0e04a&#038;ei=5090&#038;partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss">isn't even close to moving the needle</a> in terms of global (or national) energy consumption.  Even the optimistic forecasts call for it to supply 2-3% of US energy use 25 years from now.  The caveat is that if there are some major breakthroughs in solar technology, it could take off much more rapidly.  Considering how much investment there is into the space, some breakthroughs are likely.  It's also worth bearing in mind that these forecasts aren't set in stone by any means.  Forecasting anything remains an inexact, <a href="http://www.arthurdevany.com/2007/07/climate_forecas.html">if not counterproductive</a>, science.  But as long as energy is expensive, as it is today, companies and investors will look for ways to bring more of it to market.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070716/073502.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070716/073502.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070716/073502.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sun-ra</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070716/073502</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:07:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Industries Feeling The Brunt Of Ethanol Subsidies</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/122656.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/122656.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Unintended consequences stemming from the federal government's love of ethanol continue to pop up in all corners of the economy.  As we've seen, subsidies for corn are contributing to widespread <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070703/084834.shtml">"agflation"</a>, leaving businesses to deal with the challenges of higher commodity costs.  As The Wall Street Journal notes, <a href="http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&#038;etMailToID=1420497842">soap makers are getting hit particularly hard</a>, as prices are up for beef tallow, a kind of fat that is an important ingredient in soap.  Also, there's a new subsidy for companies turning animal fat directly into fuel, which will further shorten supplies of this ingredient.  The plight of the soap makers isn't unique, and in fact it would be impossible to adequately anticipate all of the myriad effects of our ethanol policy.  But it's clear that simply throwing money at any energy source deemed to be "alternative" is not particularly smart from the standpoint of the economy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/122656.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/122656.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070710/122656.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-it's-alternative</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070710/122656</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>