Oh, how quickly the winds of fortune change direction. After receiving billions in tax breaks from a Republican-controlled Congress a few short years ago, Big Oil is sweating heavy over a new bill that would raise about $14 billion from petrol companies over 10 years and would shower about the same amount of money on new incentives for solar power, wind power, cellulosic ethanol and scores of other renewable fuels. Before you think this one will be defeated, consider this: The ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, has already endorsed the $14 billion package.

In addition to this package, the Senate is also considering endorsing a bill by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico that would raise $10 billion from companies that drill for oil and gas in federal waters but do not currently pay royalties to the government. How silly is that? Oil companies are of course complaining through megaphones claiming that such measures will take money away from drilling and exploring in the U.S. — something that seems about as genuine as their accounting. Did you know that there's an accounting loophole that allows oil companies to save $5 billion a year in taxes? Senator Charles Schumer of New York is attempting to close it with another new bill.

What all of this means is that the honeymoon for the oil industry is clearly over. Sure, there will continue to be record profits and a gushing cash flow, but tax break, subsidies, and other perks will no longer be specific to fossil fuels. The United States is finally beginning to recognize that renewable energy is as important to the security and sustainability of the country as are other sources. As Senator Bingham succinctly put it the other day, "We are cutting back subsidies for the oil and gas industry and using that money to finance the development of new and cleaner sources of energy."

It's about time, Congress. Welcome to the 21st Century. The rest of the world has been waiting. Hit the jump for more.

Imagine growing up, going to school, graduating, going to college for a couple years and then getting that magical phone call: "Son, it's time to change the light bulb." You rush home in flurry of excitement and anticipation as your parents show you how to change a light — something you yourself may not do until your own kids are in college. Those times are coming.

Well actually, they're here. But until prices coming down, most of us will simply rely on compact fluorescents to bridge the gap between changing a bulb one a year to once every couple decades. I spied a new entry into the LED fold over at MetaEfficient with a cool looking bulb called "The EcoLED". According to the stats, this long-lasting, efficient beast will last about 50,000 hours. In scale, that's about 11 years at 12 hours a day. Since I would never leave a light on for that long, you can expect this bulb to shine well into your midlife crisis.

The bulb mimics a 100-watt incandescent but only uses 10 watts of power. According to the site, that's good for $450 in savings and a reduction of more than 9,000lbs of CO2. You'll also want to use this bulb a little differently than the standard light,

"Remember: LED lights are directional (like a spotlight). This EcoLED light has a beam angle of 100 degrees, which is equivalent to a wide spotlight. It is not appropriate for use in lamps with lamp shades or other lighting applications where light needs to be emitted in all directions at once. (However, it can be aimed at a wall or ceiling to produce radiant ambient light that radiates through the entire room.)"

It should be noted that work is underway (especially by GE) to create LED lights that do in fact mimic the light radiance of incandescent and CFL bulbs. The color of LED lights (which is a brilliant, pure white light) is also different from the yellow glow of an incandescent. So far, that hasn't marred their label as "the bulb of the future".

You can pick up the EcoLED for $99 from BetterLifeGoods. While this may seem like ridiculous change for a light bulb, the experience of replacing it in the year 2027 will be simply priceless.

More info after the jump.

I'm not sure about you, but I could most certainly use a more efficient cell phone. It could be my "Sexy Back" ringtone that's causing it to shut down repeatedly or my repeated use of the LCD as a flashlight. Either way, I'm hooked to the grid more often that I'd like to be.

It's with great anticipation then that I look to Motorola's future plans to incorporate solar technology with cell phones. The company was awarded a patent this past week for an LCD panel that will not only display a color image, but also produce energy with integrated photovoltaic cells. Of course, this isn't the first time something of this nature has been attempted; but past results have been less than successful because of the way current LCD panels absorb light. From the article,

Motorola engineer, Zili Li, recently proposed building the LCD with special filters made from a polymer film that reflects narrow bands of the light spectrum. This allows a sufficient amount of light to pass through the screen to the solar panel, while still providing an adequate color picture on the mobile’s LCD.

While you won't be able to take this phone out into the wilderness and expect it to remain self-sufficient, this tech will increase the battery life, resulting is less charges. Besides, if you need additional clean green power, you could always check out some of the cool products to assist you that we've profiled on GO in the past.

We're still waiting for solar panels that are integrated onto the back of cell phones. Think of all that wasted real estate! As Amy pointed out here, there's plenty of potential on the table, but nothing commercially viable as of yet. One thing's for certain — all of this news regarding the integration of solar cells can only mean a more efficient future for these accessories that "we can't live without". Low battery be damned!

Hit the jump for more information.

The situation that exists in the Town of Cheektowaga, outside of Buffalo, is the type that an environmentalist hates to see. Not just because the town recently voted to shift from solar to electric street lights, but also because the pilot program and technology failed so miserably.

What appears to have been a rush to savings with the installation of the solar lights in 2003 has now backfired and cast a shadow on a greener future.

Apparently, the solar panels installed above the lights were faulty and ineffective. Residents complained that they were unsightly and not very bright. Kind of reminds me of those solar garden lights you see everyone using these days. Another issue: the lights stopped working during a stretch of sunless days in December 2005 and January 2006.

So, we have a failed "green" program that in the long run will hurt additional chances to improve energy efficiency. Obviously, someone goofed on either the size of the batteries, the quality of the panels, or the thinking that solar energy in Buffalo, NY was highly reliable for street lighting. All it takes is one brush with faulty technology to make residents not want to pursue it any longer, even with advances in efficiency and battery technology in the coming years.

By September or October, Cheektowaga will remove the solar lights and install up to 330 electric lights under a new contract. While it's important to highlight the positives of the green movement, it's also just as necessary to point out the projects that fail miserably. Let's hope such setbacks only strengthen future implementations of the technology.

Source: The Buffalo News

The war against plastic anything continues to rage on the streets of San Francisco. While we profiled the city-wide ban on plastic bags earlier this month, it's also worth noting that several local restaurants are also giving up bottled water in favor of tap.

The San Francisco Chronicle recently profiled several eateries that now offer up bubbly, filtered tap — a move that many credit to growing awareness regarding sustainability and energy. It makes sense, too: San Francisco is widely regarded as having some of the best tap water in the country.

Most restaurants are reluctant to give up the option of serving customers bottled water, mainly because it's a very profitable product. The environmental impact, however, is massive: with energy for creation, transportation, and disposal wasted on developed countries with perfectly fine tap water. It's a marketing success story that has created an amazing (and frightening) industry worth billions yearly. Last year, Americans consumed about 26 gallons each of bottled water over tap!

So, many restaurants in an effort to become more sustainable have decided to ditch bottled water and come up with creative ways to spruce up good 'ole tap. From the article,

"Our whole goal of sustainability means using as little energy as we have to. Shipping bottles of water from Italy doesn't make sense,' says Mike Kossa-Rienzi, general manager of Chez Panisse. Management hopes to complete the switch from Santa Lucia acqua con gaz to house-made sparkling water this week at both the restaurant and upstairs cafe. Chez Panisse stopped offering bottled still water last summer."

Education on how clean tap water is could be the key to getting more Americans to save the money in their wallets and help protect the environment at the same time. The advertising behind bottled water is so good (and for an $11 billion market, who can blame them?) that many of us view tap as poison. Additionally, since bottled water will not go away, it would be encouraging to see more companies use corn-based plastics that break down over time. The landfill impact could be greatly reduced with such actions.

Are there any restaurants in your area that have taken the tap water route? What do you believe the key to fighting this wasteful product is?

via San Francisco Chronicle via Green Thinkers

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, "If the Stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore. But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile."

Unfortunately, not even Emerson could predict how fallible starlight could be during modern times of overwhelming light pollution. Earlier today, in Australia's capital of Sydney, residents received their first glimpse of a dark city skyline. For some, it was one of the few times they could pick out certain constellations.

Sydney dimmed or turned off lights to highlight the pressing issue of climate change and bring awareness to energy consumption. The city of 4 million people had one hour in which to marvel as such landmarks as the harbor bridge, Syden Opera House, and chunks of the skyline went dark. The move was supported by environmentalists, Sydney City Officials, New South Whales state government and thousands of businesses and organizations. Restaurants even held candlelight-only specials and families gathered in parks to celebrate.

I applaud Sydney for this move. Not only did they appear moderately successful in their efforts to kick the lights, but they also did it for an extended period of time. Cities like Paris, Rome and Athens made similar strides earlier in February, but those lasted only about 5 minutes. Efforts, while small, are underway in many parts of the world to curb light pollution, while still maintaining safe and well-lit areas. It's well-known that excessive light wastes energy, obscures the night sky, disrupts ecosystems, and even harm human health. Energy towards lighting accounts for one fourth of world-wide consumption. Those Target signs or parking lots you see illuminated all night are part of the problem. It's time to recognize what's useful and what's wasteful.

It's with sad amusement that I watch my friends from urban areas look up at the stars in wonder when they come to visit my country setting. While the second part of Emerson's quote may not be necessarily true anymore, the first is surprisingly real. When was the last time you saw a perfect dark sky?

Hit the jump for more information on Sydney's successful dark hour.

I saw a post recently while browsing Hugg promoting a new piece of software that might help those of us with “Forgetfulshutdowncomputer-itis”. Yes, it’s true. “Forgetfulshutdowncomputer-itis” is a real disease that effects 3 out of 5 Americans with a computer. Those without a computer did not respond to our emails about the survey.

Anyways, as I found while watching Grey’s Anatomy (that’s right, and I enjoy it.) “Forgetfulshutdowncomputer-itis” can be a significant cause of massive energy waste. The CO2 emissions caused by 15 computers consistently running are equal to the gas consumption energy-wise by one car! Overall, more than 30 billion watts of energy are lost to this terrible disease. Thankfully, there’s now a nice piece of software you can install to help optimize your computers energy efficiency.

Called Local Cooling, this little app will save power by either turning off your screen, putting your hard drive to sleep when not used or shutting down your PC when you are away. Of course, so you’re not interrupted in the middle of leaving a humorous response to this post, you can adjust when and how this happens in the settings. There’s also a little ‘incentive’ window that tells you how well you’re contributing in terms of trees or gallons of oil saved. Just glancing at it makes me feel all green inside…and hungry. Though I can’t explain the last part….

Anyways, download the app and give it a shot. At the very least, install it on your work computer and your co-workers computer. “Forgetfulshutdowncomputer-itis” may not go away tomorrow, but at least there’s a handy solution that’s got your back for those days that are worse than others.

"…and on the fourth day, the Lord created the Sun and Moon." For the environmentalist that is also a budding evangelist (or vice-versa), I present to you the Solar Powered Talking-Bible. Yes, now your daily spiritual infusion can be powered by the heavens above.

From the Old Testament to the New, this talking marvel of modern technology will run for a good 14 hours on a single charge. Skip chapters at the touch of a button, pause and reflect on your favorite passages, or move back and forth in 15-second intervals.

Purchasing a solar-powered plastic device to recite the Bible might be a little extreme; especially considering the amount of energy and labor that must go into making this product. While there are benefits to reducing power consumption on some devices (ie; ipod or cell phone), I seriously question the need for alternatives such as this. To be fair, it does service those that are seeing-impaired or illiterate — and less batteries are a good thing. I just believe that such devices are the beginning of a long list of solar-junk. (The device, not the Bible.) What do you think? Is this a step in the right direction or simply another product that the world could have done without? The road to solar salvation can be purchased for $99 here!

via Treehugger

Forget clean coal technology or nuclear power plants: a report issued by researchers at MIT has concluded that a substantial amount of power lies just below the Earth's crust. The report, titled "The Future of Geothermal Energy", is the first in almost 30 years to take a look at mining heat for energy.

The report shows that "drilling several wells to reach hot rock and connecting them to a fractured rock region that has been stimulated to let water flow through it creates a heat-exchanger that can produce large amounts of hot water or steam to run electric generators at the surface." In other words, no fuel would be needed to run those generators (unlike conventional power plants) and the energy would run day or night continously. Environmentally, such an energy source would require a small footprint (since most of the technology is contained underground).

It's fascinating to note that electricity produced annually by geothermal energy systems now in use in the United States at sites in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to that produced by solar and wind power combined. Researches admit that the potential is far-greater since most sites throughout the U.S. are within reach of hot rocks underground.

It's an interesting option to consider geothermal energy as opposed to other carbon-based sources. There are concerns with the technology (seismic issues and water requirements in arid regions), but overall — much like the sun — everything we need is available with very little effort. We have the technology (the U.S. has been the leader in geothermal tech for decades) but we're apparently lacking the vision. Here's to hoping that reports such as this one lead to greater investment and put geothermal as a card on the table of future U.S. energy sources.

Source: MIT-led Panel Backs Geothermal As Key U.S. Energy Source

A survey by researchers at the University of Michigan has revealed that we may be slighly more optimistic than realistically practical when it comes to world oil reserves.

The reasearchers claim that the price of a gallon of gasoline will be $4 a gallon within 8 years and somewhere a little above $5 a gallon by the year 2020. Seems a little conservative, right? But no worries, the survey revealed that we should be okay because within those 13 years, mileage for cars will have improved to an average of 38mpg, with trucks improving to 31mpg. In little over a decade, we'll have done very little to improve the efficiency of our transportation industry. And yet, this is all supposed to be comforting.

The survey did find that potentially more than half the U.S. fleet will run alternative fuels by 2020. This is promising; but as one researcher noted, "The auto industry may be operating under a false - and potentially fatal - assumption that fuel economy is not a high priority.''

I wonder what variables this survey took into account? Nowhere is anything mentioned about the rise of automobiles and fuel consumption in China, India, and other developing countries. Global Warming aside, I wish there was more of a push by automakers to increase fuel economy in expectation of higher gas prices. Going from an average of 27mpg today to 38mpg in 2020 is unacceptable. Much like the price hikes of the past couple years, I think we're in for an incredible sticker shock down the road. Brush up on your hitchhiking skills.

Link: Gas Prices Will Pass $5/gallon by 2020