The Future of Luxury Cars = Hybrid Hydogen

I just learned today that Aston Martin is building a hybrid hydrogen-gasoline luxury car.

They've even been testing it on the Nürburgring test track in Germany, as shown in the photo on the right.
When it will actually be available is anyone's guess, but I can pretty much guarantee the first hybrid-hydrogen cars will be luxury models aimed at the population's upper crust.

In America owning a hybrid car is a status symbol.

It is something Americans buy so that they can have the bragging rights. They don't really care about whether they are saving the environment, they just want the bragging rights.

And that pretty much goes the same with any car that costs over $50,000 - the goal isn't to have a nice car, the goal is to have a nice car that you can brag about to friends, neighbours, co-workers, everyone who will even listen to you.

"So what kind of car do you drive?"

"Oh, I drive an old Honda. What do you drive?"

"I just got myself a new Infiniti G35H. The H stands for Hybrid!" and then they start bragging about how they are saving the environment and how fast it goes at the same time.

However what you might not know is that luxury cars are also often the testing ground for new technology - because the people who buy luxury cars are always looking for new gadgets to have on their cars. And lets face it, who doesn't love extra gadgets on their car?

We are used to things like

Navigation System
Speaker System
Climate Control
Tracking System

And with convertibles we now have things like Button activated top up, top down.

Seriously, who invented convertible cars?

Well the answer varies, but the first hard-top convertible car was sold by Chrysler in 1946 and yes, it was a luxury car (the 1946 Chrysler Windsor).

These days when it comes to gadgets many parents just want a car with TVs on the backs of seats so their kids will be quiet and watch TV without becoming a nuisance. If they're young and hip they might be more worried about how to attach their smartphone to the speaker system.

In other words they're more worried about entertainment gadgets than anything that improves the car itself.

But me, well I just love hydrogen cars. Can't wait for them to become the norm.

And it will be hybrid hydrogen gasoline cars that become the turning point, so people can still use gasoline for now, but as hydrogen becomes more available and widely used they will be able to use that instead.

Hydrogen has many benefits over battery powered hybrids. It gives way more power, weighs less, and where batteries have good short range viability, they aren't so good at long range usage which is why gasoline is needed. But hydrogen is good for both long and short range usage. And unlike batteries which need to be charged for hours at a time, hydrogen is filled up in a manner very similar to gasoline.

Oh and I also like lockable wheel nuts. I've also seen this being sold for bicycles (to prevent bicycle thieves from stealing wheels), but they're very useful.

And lets not forget the biggest selling point of a luxury car - it is also a car with a more powerful engine, better handling, better wheels, better design.

Faster, smoother, more reliable, more desirable.

So yes, luxury cars do give you more technological advances - but they also give you time, tested and true guts and performance in the belly of the car. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

Thus regardless of what brand a person buys, if they buy a luxury car they are more likely to be happier with the results and have fewer regrets.

6 Myths about Biofuel

Have you ever thought about switching to biofuel for your car? Well maybe you need a little education in what biofuel actually is.

Myth #1. "Biofuel can be used in any car."

Biofuel is actually "Biodiesel", which means you will need a car which runs on diesel. Diesel vehicles make up a small percentage of the market and most automotive manufacturers don't make diesel versions of their cars.

Myth #2. "Biofuel is green."

Do you know how an internal combustion engine works? It burns the fuel. Ignites it using a spark and the tiny explosion pushes pistons, etc... The point is that it BURNS the fuel and creates carbon dioxide. There is nothing "green" about burning fuels.

Myth #3. "Biofuel is cheaper."

Fuel prices fluctuate, just like grain prices do. Yes, when oil prices are sky high then biofuel will be cheaper. But when grain prices are sky high it will be the opposite. And the demand for biofuel has been forcing grain (and food) prices much higher than they should be. So no, it isn't actually cheaper.

It is true that biofuel used to be cheaper than diesel, back in 2007, but 5 years later the prices have gone up considerably and due to market conditions what happens is that biofuel (*which is really just diesel made using plants*) is now the same price as diesel. Sometimes more.

Myth #4. "Biofuel is greener because its made using plants."

First of all say something is "greener" is a misnomer.
Think about this... you are taking fields of corn (or other suitable plants), turning it into biofuel and then BURNING it. You are basically just setting fire to corn fields. How is that supposed to be green or "greener"? Yes, the plants convert CO2 in the air into plant fibre using photosynthesis, but it really just ends up being "neutral" if you ignore the fuel used to plant the seeds and later harvest all of it, transport it... To say nothing to the damage done to the food industry and starving people who can't afford the rising prices of corn. The end result is that it is not green and it is not "greener".

Add in deforestation of tropical rainforests to plant fields for crops and the damage is bigger than you can ever imagine. Soybeans supply 40 percent of Brazil's biofuels.

Myth #5. "Biofuel is sustainable."

Hahaha! To provide enough biofuel for all of our needs we would need to radically change the way we farm. It would result in increasing the prices of food by many times over. We really don't have the resources to mass produce large amounts of biofuel AND food production at the same time. To be sustainable something needs to be able to be reproduced again and again, in unlimited quantities, without effecting other markets (food production) in such a way that it would be counterproductive, and meet the market demand.

Here is some data:

To produce 5.75 percent of Europe's transport power using biofuel Europe would need to plant 70 percent of its farmland with fuel crops.

Yes, if we turned all the cornfields towards biofuel production we might be able to boost biofuel production. But it will never meet all of the market demand... and it would be disastrous for food prices.

Myth #6. "The biofuel industry isn't controlled by Big Oil."

If only that were true... Big Oil, grain, auto and genetic engineering corporations are forming partnerships, and they are consolidating the research, production, processing and distribution chains of food and fuel systems under one industrial roof. You cannot cut into the action of the oil industry without them turning around and buying out the competition.

For more on this topic read the article below:

The Biofuel Myths

By Eric Holt-Giménez

The term "biofuels" suggests renewable abundance: clean, green, sustainable assurance about technology and progress. This pure image allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the United Nations and even the International Panel on Climate Change to present fuels made from corn, sugarcane, soy and other crops as the next step in a smooth transition from peak oil to a yet-to-be-defined renewable fuel economy.

But in reality, biofuel draws its power from cornucopian myths and directs our attention away from economic interests that would benefit from the transition, while avoiding discussion of the growing North-South food and energy imbalance.

They obscure the political-economic relationships between land, people, resources and food, and fail to help us understand the profound consequences of the industrial transformation of our food and fuel systems. "Agro-fuels" better describes the industrial interests behind the transformation, and is the term most widely used in the global South

Industrialized countries started the biofuels boom by demanding ambitious renewable-fuel targets. These fuels are to provide 5.75 percent of Europe's transport power by 2010 and 10 percent by 2020. The United States wants 35 billion gallons a year.

These targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of the industrial North. Europe would need to plant 70 percent of its farmland with fuel crops. The entire corn and soy harvest of the United States would need to be processed as ethanol and biodiesel. Converting most arable land to fuel crops would destroy the food systems of the North, so the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development countries are looking to the South to meet demand.

The rapid capitalization and concentration of power within the biofuels industry is extreme. Over the past three years, venture capital investment in biofuels has increased by 800 percent. Private investment is swamping public research institutions.

Behind the scenes, under the noses of most national antitrust laws, giant oil, grain, auto and genetic engineering corporations are forming partnerships, and they are consolidating the research, production, processing and distribution chains of food and fuel systems under one industrial roof.

Biofuel champions assure us that because fuel crops are renewable, they are environment-friendly, can reduce global warming and will foster rural development. But the tremendous market power of biofuel corporations, coupled with the poor political will of governments to regulate their activities, make this unlikely. We need a public enquiry into the myths:

Biofuels are clean and green.

Because photosynthesis performed by fuel crops removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and can reduce fossil fuel consumption, we are told they are green. But when the full lifecycle of biofuels is considered, from land clearing to consumption, the moderate emission savings are outweighed by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation and soil-carbon losses.

Every ton of palm oil generates 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions - 10 times more than petroleum. Tropical forests cleared for sugar cane ethanol emit 50 percent more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the same amount of gasoline.

Biofuels will not result in deforestation.

Proponents of biofuels argue that fuel crops planted on ecologically degraded lands will improve rather than destroy the environment. Perhaps the government of Brazil had this in mind when it reclassified some 200 million hectares of dry-tropical forests, grassland and marshes as degraded and apt for cultivation.

In reality, these are the biodiverse ecosystems of the Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado and the Pantanal, occupied by indigenous people, subsistence farmers and extensive cattle ranches. The introduction of agrofuel plantations will push these communities to the agricultural frontier of the Amazon where the devastating patterns of deforestation are well known.

Soybeans supply 40 percent of Brazil's biofuels. NASA has correlated their market price with the destruction of the Amazon rainforest - currently at nearly 325,000 hectares a year.

Biofuels will bring rural development.

In the tropics, 100 hectares dedicated to family farming generates 35 jobs. Oil-palm and sugarcane provide 10 jobs, eucalyptus two, and soybeans a scant half-job per 100 hectares, all poorly paid.

Until recently, biofuels supplied primarily local and subregional markets. Even in the United States, most ethanol plants were small and farmer-owned. With the boom, big industry is moving in, centralizing operations and creating gargantuan economies of scale.

Biofuels producers will be dependent on a cabal of companies for their seed, inputs, services, processing and sale. They are not likely to receive many benefits. Small holders will be forced out of the market and off the land. Hundreds of thousands have already been displaced by the soybean plantations in the "Republic of Soy," a 50-million hectare area in southern Brazil, northern Argentina, Paraguay and eastern Bolivia.

Biofuels will not cause hunger.

Hunger results not from scarcity, but poverty. The world's poorest already spend 50 to 80 percent of household income on food. They suffer when high fuel prices push up food prices. Now, because food and fuel crops compete for land and resources, both increase the price of land and water.

The International Food Policy Research Institute has estimated that the price of basic staples will increase 20 to 33 percent by 2010 and 26 to 135 percent by 2020. Caloric consumption declines as price rises by a ratio of 1:2.

Limits must be placed on the biofuels industry. The North cannot shift the burden of overconsumption to the South because the tropics have more sunlight, rain and arable land. If biofuels are to be forest- and food-friendly, the grain, cane and palm oil industries need to be regulated, and not piecemeal.

Strong, enforceable standards based on limiting land planted for biofuels are urgently needed, as are antitrust laws powerful enough to prevent the corporate concentration of market power in the industry. Sustainable benefits to the countryside will only accrue if biofuels are a complement to plans for sustainable rural development, not the centerpiece.

A global moratorium on the expansion of biofuels is needed to develop regulatory structures and foster conservation and development alternatives to the transition. We need the time to make a better transition to food and fuel sovereignty.

Gasoline Vs Electric Hybrid Vs Hydrogen

By Charles Moffat - March 2012.

CARS - I witnessed an interesting argument recently on Facebook which saw gasoline cars pitted against electric hybrid cars and hydrogen cars.

What was interesting was two things:

#1. How entrenched people were with their beliefs regarding choice of fuel and fuel economy. Everyone assumed they knew more than others.

#2. How ignorant many of the people were about the actual numbers.

One of the few people who actually knew what they were talking about came up with the following comparisons:

(Gasoline) 2012 Honda Civic XL which gets 40 mpg.

(Hybrid Electric) 2012 Toyota Prius Hybrid which gets 50 mpg.

(Hydrogen) 2012 Honda FCX Clarity gets 60 miles per kg of hydrogen.

Now these 3 cars are all roughly the same size and quality.

However we should note that the price of gasoline vs hydrogen is different.

In the USA right now the average price of gasoline is hovering around $3.80 per gallon. The price varies from state to state and from gas station to gas station, but that is roughly how much you can expect to pay.

The cost of hydrogen meanwhile is pegged at $4.999 per KG in California (one of the few states that currently has hydrogen filling stations).

So now we have to do some fancy math to see which is best...

2012 Honda Civic XL is $15,805 USD, and will cost you approx. $9.50 USD to drive 100 miles.

2012 Toyota Prius Hybrid is $33,000 USD, and will cost you $7.60 USD to drive 100 miles. (The Hybrid will keep its value longer however and you will get a better resale price.)

Buying a 2012 Honda FCX Clarity currently in the USA is currently impossible. They're only available for a 3 year lease (at $600 per month or $21,600 for 3 years). However I did some research and found an United Arab Emirates website which was selling the 2012 Honda FCX Clarity for 97,000 AED (roughly $27,000 USD)... which means it was probably stolen and shipped overseas.

The fuel economy for a 2012 Honda FCX Clarity is $8.32 USD to drive 100 miles.

"Aha!" we both say!

Fuel economy wise hydrogen is currently better than gasoline cars, but not better than a hybrid car. Currently. What happens if gasoline prices go up to $5 per gallon?

Honda Civic XL = $12.50 per 100 miles.
Toyota Prius Hybrid = $10.00 per 100 miles.
Honda FCX Clarity = $8.32 per 100 miles.

Mind you the cost of gasoline probably won't reach $5 per gallon until 2020. But the good news is that Honda and several other major car manufacturers are planning to release mass market hydrogen fuel cell cars by 2015, which means that will give them a few years to bring the manufacturing prices down.

To reach $5 per gallon we would have to see oil prices rise to approx. $165 USD per barrel. This is assuming the current ratio of oil prices to gas prices stays stable, the ratio has been getting worse in recent years as gas companies are price gouging in an effort to get higher profits.

Coal is the true Greenhouse Gas Killer

ENVIRONMENT - Alberta's tar pits (aka the oil sands) isn't likely to make much difference as far as global warming and climate change is concerned, says Andrew Weaver, one of the world’s top climate change scientists.

Weaver has calculated that emissions from from burning coal to make electricity is the real threat to the planet's ecosystem.

“I was surprised by the results of our analysis,” says Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate change specialist, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Weaver and colleague Neil Stewart analyzed how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis includes unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional sources including the Canadian tar sands.

Weaver and Stewart found that if all the hydrocarbons in the tar sands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about 0.36 Celsius.

When only commercially viable tar sands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only 0.03 Celsius. So the Canadian tar sands is just a drop in the proverbial bucket (although it is still an ecological hazard for the petrochemicals being spilled into the water supply and giving cancer to residents who drink the local water, to say nothing of the damage caused to plants and animals in the region).

In contrast, burning all the globe’s vast coal deposits would create a 15 Celsius increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by 3.1 degrees.

Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep global warming to two degrees, although little action is currently be done to stop the changes.

“The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming,” says Weaver. “The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas.”

The increased dependence on coal for the purpose of making electricity is what governments should really worry about.

Burning all the oil in the world would raise temperatures by 0.9 Celsius.

The end message is that countries need to start shutting down coal burners and switch to nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal energy.

It is estimated it would only take 5 large geothermal facilities to produce all the energy Canada needs, but the Canadian government is refusing to even build 1 geothermal facility despite the success of Canadian geothermal companies operating overseas.

Toronto Schools to host the largest solar project in Canada

CANADA - The Toronto District School Board has approved a $445 million deal to add solar panels to almost every school in Toronto over the next 20 years, at no extra cost to taxpayers. It will be the biggest rooftop solar project in Canada.

The company (AMP Solar Ltd.) installing the solar panels will spend $121 million to repair and renovate school rooftops, and in exchange will gain the exclusive rights to put solar panels on the rooftops. AMP Solar Ltd. will be responsible for construction, technology, power generation, financing, roofing, operations and maintenance. Furthermore the Toronto school board will get a share of the profits from selling the electricity and will be paid rent for leasing the rooftop space.

AMP Solar Ltd. will install panels on up to 450 of the board’s 524 roofs, fixing the worst roofs in the first three years. Once installed the solar panels are expected to generate 66 megawatts of green energy per year, enough for 6,000 average Toronto homes.

The school board is now getting phone calls from other educators around the world for details, hoping to get a similar program at their schools.

“This is groundbreaking; this reduces greenhouse gases and provides a learning opportunity for our students and leaves a legacy for more than 20 years — this is extraordinary,” says Toronto District School Board Trustee Howard Goodman.

“Our students will not only be able to track the relationship between sunlight and electricity production, they will be going to school every day in a working power plant,” says Goodman. “This will make abstract concepts tangible and inspire many of them to build their own small-scale model power plants, look into the work of Einstein, ponder the mysteries of quantum physics, investigate the economics of power production and consider the relative environmental and health impacts of different energy sources.”

COMMENTARY

We think there is potential here for what we might term "Responsible Sponsorship". Some schools in the USA are accepting sponsors in an effort to keep their athletic programs, but sadly these sponsors are often promoting junk food and sugary drinks.

Responsible Sponsorship would mean only accepting sponsors which fulfill a helpful purpose that benefits society. ie. Tobacco = Bad. Bicycles = Good. Evidently local companies would be preferred. Even neutral companies like "Local Furniture Ltd." would be better than say McFattyBurger... and the furniture company could build all the desks, furniture, etc. for the school, but in exchange get advertising space in the school and any school publications (which parents would then see, and think "Hey, maybe we should buy our next sofa there.").

Food for Thought.

Toronto man towing solar car in stunt to legalize it

CARS/CANADA - Toronto man Marcelo da Luz has towed his solar car 160 km from Niagara Falls to Toronto, using a harness strapped to his chest, because the Ontario government won't let him drive the solar car legally on Ontario roads.

The final stretch of manually hauling the vehicle will be to the Ontario Legislature today where he hopes to convince the government to make it street legal. He has been towing the 213-kilogram car an average of 15 kilometres per day.

The 42-year-old from Toronto says the Ontario government has made it virtually impossible to drive it legally in the province.

“Ontario has been fantastic, they have been the leader on so many fronts in terms of sustainability with a lot of green initiatives,” Da Luz said yesterday. “Unfortunately we haven’t seen that leadership in the [Federal] Ministry of Transportation."

“This is an opportunity for us to develop new technology that we could be using every day. Engineers that could be developing projects like this, and secure the technology right here are moving away.”

Da Luz is a flight attendant and spent his life’s savings, mortgaged his home, took out loans, and worked with engineers to build the car in 1999.

Da Luz has since driven it across North America, to the North West Territories, the U.S.-Mexico border, the Florida Keys, and back to Canada. He has broken a world record for distance traveled in a solar car. The solar car can travel about 500 kilometres on a sunny day or 200 kilometres at night, runs on less power than a toaster. It can hit maximum speeds of 120 km/h.

He was once pulled over by police in Alaska when someone called to report a UFO.

Ontario placed a moratorium on solar cars in 2004 after a fatal accident.

Da Luz points out however that fatal accidents in regular cars happen all the time, so one in a solar car shouldn’t mean an outright ban.

Home Improvement Vs the Divorce Rate

By Charles Moffat - February 2011.

CANADA - When I was younger every time my parents decided to do home renovations I thought for sure they might get divorced several times during various incidents/arguments.

These days I've concluded that they're just plain stuck together for a variety of reasons and they seem to happier now that all of birds have flown the nest and eventually the chirping of grandchildren will be heard.

Nevertheless it does make me wonder what percentage of divorces are brought on by home repair, improvement, renovations, etc.

ie. Lets say you like swimming pools... My parents put in their swimming pool in 1974 roughly (I am guessing the year, I admit) and from what my mother says that was the first true test of their marriage. It was argument after argument and probably a few migraine-ish headaches too. (Probably a lot less stressful to have someone else dig and install the swimming pool, but my parents like being Do-It-Yourselfers.)

And then there was the deck beside the swimming pool. That was actually two projects, one when they first built the pool and the deck, and again in the 1990s when they installed a new deck because the old one was rotting.

Trust me, patio furniture was the least of their worries.

Then there was the matter of how to heat the pool. My parents decided to use a low-tech option of solar heating, using black tubing that was coiled up on top of the roof. The tubing absorbed the heat from the sun and during hot summer days would reach 110 degrees F or hotter. The water flowed through the tubing, into the pool and that kept the pool water in the 60 to 75 degree range depending on the time of year.

However for this system to work the water had to be pumped through all those tubes. The pump was notorious for breaking down and only a few years ago did my parents finally agree to buy a better pump which wouldn't break so easily. It was a nuisance to fix and the new one apparently is much better.

Its the same problem with cars too. During the 70s, 80s and early 90s my parents had a tendency to drive beaten down cars that always needed repairs. They were a constant source of arguments. I eventually argued (and I am proud to say I won this argument and convinced them despite being a teenager at the time) that they would be better off buying a new car that was in good condition and wouldn't require repairs constantly. I argued that the cost of repairs on a car not worth that much would be better spent on a newer car that was more reliable and would actually save them money over the long term because they wouldn't need to spend so much on maintenance/repairs.

I have also been trying (unsuccessfully so far) to convince my parents to buy a windmill (or 3) and a couple solar panels for their home. Instead they decided to buy an electric gas-powered generator, because they were more worried about black outs/etc than they were worried about saving money.

When it comes to home improvement my parents (and many other people like them) do like to save money. The real question is how much will they save and how quickly.

Well one of the quickest and easy ways is home insulation. And there's many ways to do it, ie. rigid foam insulation and similar wall systems. That is a much easier sell for getting them to save money because they see it very quickly on their gas heating bills (especially with gas prices going up).

And once the insulation is in place there is also Geothermal Heating Systems.

And thanks to various government programs, like the Ontario MicroFIT program, home owners can also get income tax rebates on home improvements they make. The incentives are out there if Canadians bother to do the research and the math and calculate how much they need to install in order to either break even, save money, or even make money by selling electricity back into the grid.

As our society becomes more technological savvy (complete with wireless broadband internet, mobile laptops, smartphones, complex sorting and manufacturing software, computers, servers and any number of gadgets working/charging off the grid) we are going to need a lot more electricity. In fact our electricity use in Ontario has gone up 45% in the last 8 years. By 2020 it is expected to double 2010 numbers.

And small surprise. Even as I write this I have a fridge, a freezer, a heater, a cellphone charger and not one but TWO computers running at the same time. 10 years ago would have seen less stuff all sucking energy simultaneously.

So we NEED more electricity. And thus electricity prices are going to skyrocket as we run into a shortage of sources to draw energy from. (See my recent post about the Niagara Tunnel for one innovative way we are finding more electricity.)

But not everyone agrees on how to save money and get more electricity at the same time. Thus it can also be a source of arguments for many families, as money issues frequently are.

My parents once took the kids to see psychologists because they were apparently contemplating divorce. They even saw a marriage counsellor. I never got all the facts about what was really stressing my parents out, but statistics suggest it may have been a combination of stress and sex-related causes.

And because I am uncomfortable talking about my parents' sex life, lets just change the topic real quick and go back to the topic of divorce.

I mean they could have gone down that road. Divorced, sold the farm, they are not the type of people to hire a home stager (which is a much more modern idea).

Instead my parents stayed together and seem to be focusing on their love of travel now, getting away from home and driving all over North America in their relatively new car which doesn't break down so much. And they've focused on their interests of gardening and various hobbies. ie. In recent years my mother has taken up the bagpipes and drumming, both of which my father has been rather supportive of despite the noise.

I suppose they could have been like our family friends Jim and Sharon who took dance classes and go square dancing every Friday night, but to each their own.

In other news, Happy Valentines Day!

Niagara Tunnel an innovation worth paying for

CANADA/ENVIRONMENT - Deep underneath Niagara Falls a 4,000 tonne drill named "Big Becky" is drilling a 10.2 kilometre long tunnel, 14 meters wide, that is soon due to near its goal above the Niagara Falls. Once the pipe is completed it will channel 500 cubic meters of water / second through turbines and produce 1.6 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually.

And better yet, it preserves the natural beauty of the Niagara Falls.

The $1 billion project has gone over budget and eventually came in at $1.6 billion, but that is normal for all large scale projects.

For example the refit of Bruce Nuclear is $2 billion over the original estimate and has cost $3.8 billion as of November 2010. Its also overdue for completion. New estimates say it will be $5 billion by the time its completely done.

And there is other examples too, too many to mention. But basically its the problem of labour management. When you hire people to build a bridge or construct a road, they give you an estimate. Its usually a "base estimate", but what they don't include is all the time workers stand around drinking coffee waiting for the cement trucks to arrive. And its not just waiting for trucks to arrive. There are often unforeseen delays. Its the delays that adds the extra costs.

See the following videos to see how a British team tried to fix a road in 1 day, a project that normally takes at least a week.





But back to the Niagara Tunnel...

The 10.2 kilometre tunnel will carry water from above Niagara Falls to the Sir Adam Beck generating station in Queenston at a rate of 500 cubic metres a second.

Right now there is 9.5 km done, there is less than 0.7 km left. Work started in 2005 when the 4,000-tonne drilling behemoth Big Becky was first built and 'she' started eating through the rock in 2006.

If everything stays on schedule she will be done in April.

The 14 meter wide tunnel will then be smoothed down to make the water flow through it faster. The more perfectly round and smooth the pipe is the more energy that the turbines can generate because the water will go through much faster.

The final completion date is in 2013.

The entire enterprise has meant moving 1.7 million cubic metres of solid rock, and there was an unforeseen obstacle. Underneath the Niagara Falls there is a subterranean gorge at the base of waterfalls which had be drilled around because the nearby rock was unsuitable for tunneling.

Engineering projects like this are WORTH DOING. They foresee our needs in the future and get them done today so we can avert higher electricity rates in the future.

Conservative leader Tim Hudak meanwhile thinks projects like the Niagara Tunnel should be scrapped because they are too expensive and always go over budget. He is correct about the over budget part, but he hasn't realized that they're still worth it because otherwise we will end up paying for our lack of foresight in the future. Apparently he thinks it would be cheaper to buy our electricity from the USA, a country where electricity rates are also skyrocketing and will certainly be more expensive.

Electric cars = Brownouts?

CARS - The first mass-market electric cars go on sale in December 2010, but will the electricity grid be able to take the extra stress? Will cars like the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt be a boon or a burden?

When you plug in an electric car (like the Tesla Roadster on the right) you draw electricity from the grid, made from a variety of sources like nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and of course... coal.

At present coal isn't a very smart way of fueling cars. It just isn't practical to replace one source of carbon emissions (gasoline or diesel) with another source like coal.

But coal is the cheapest source of electricity.

A single electric car can draw as much power as a small house and when electric cars are being purchased by consumers the surge in demand result in brownouts where some locations just don't have enough electricity to spread around.

Utilities in parts of California, Texas and North Carolina are scrambling to upgrade transformers and other equipment in neighborhoods where the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt are expected to be in high demand.

The last time there was a sudden electricity demand like this was air conditioners during the 1950s and 1960s. So there will be problems...

But there is a silver lining... In 2009, Americans alone spent $325 billion on gasoline, and utilities would love even a small piece of that market. Especially green utility companies like Bull Frog Power which specializes in delivery 100% green electricity and invests heavily in solar and wind projects.

After all what is the point of having an electric car if the electricity being used to recharge the batteries isn't green too? Electric cars produce no emissions themselves, but the electricity they are charged with is made mostly from fossil fuels like coal. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council electric cars produce 66% less greenhouse gas emissions, on average, than a similarly sized car that runs on gasoline.

THE MAIN OBSTACLES

Limited Range: Most electric cars have a limit on their range and would have to be recharged either at home or at gas station with the proper equipment (and usually it takes awhile). In theory if you owned your own business you could have charge it up at work too. Eventually a network of charging stations will be made and parking lots will offer electricity charging as part of their services.

High Cost: Electric cars already cost more than gasoline cars, that is to be expected. Their primary goal is to "save the environment", but their secondary goal is to save money by no longer needing to buy gasoline. In the beginning using electric cars should be cheaper than gasoline, but what happens when higher demand causes electricity rates to skyrocket?

Driving 10,000 miles on electricity will use about 2,500 kilowatt-hours, or 20% more than the average annual consumption of U.S. homes. At an average utility rate of 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, that’s $275 for a year of fuel, equivalent to about 70 cents per gallon of gasoline (or 17.5 cents per litre).

Thus even if electricity rates were 55 cents per kWh you'd still be spending less on fuel than a gasoline driver. (Yesterday the price of gasoline was $1.09 / litre in Toronto.)

If you calculate how much you drive in a year you might find you have significant savings. Indeed the more you drive, the more you save in comparison to driving the same distance on gasoline.

Clustering: Utilities have more than enough power plants and equipment to power hundreds of thousands of electric cars. The problem is when lots of homeowners in one neighbourhood all buy electric cars. The phenomenon is called “clustering” because it can create local shortages and brownouts.

Electric vehicle clusters are expected in neighborhoods where:

High-income and environmentally conscious commuters live.

Generous subsidies are offered by states and localities.

Weather is mild, because batteries tend to perform better in warmer climates.

THE FUTURE

Automotive executives say it’s inevitable that utilities will experience some difficulties early on, both with the demand on their supply and also keeping their customers happy.

An estimated 30,000 Nissan Leafs and Chevrolet Volts are expected to be sold in 2011. Over the next two years Ford, Toyota and EVERY other major automaker also plans to offer electric cars as part of their new line up. (Its like the hybrids all over again...)

So in theory electric cars will be here to stay, which will make gasoline drivers happy because gasoline prices should hopefully stay stable. (Although that isn't likely, due to the high demand in China and India.)

Of course the real future is in Hydrogen Power, but the utility system and distribution network for hydrogen will need to be upgraded significantly first. Hydrogen-powered cars is really in its infancy while electric cars are toddlers in contrast. But the beauty of it is that by creating an infrastructure for electric cars it will also create a lot of the infrastructure that will later be needed for hydrogen cars (which uses electrolysis and salt water to collect hydrogen).

Governments are promoting the technology as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. The U.S. Congress is offering electric car buyers a $7,500 tax credit and some states and cities provide additional subsidies that can total $8,000. The Nissan Leaf sells for $33,000 and the Chevy Volt sells for $41,000.

Some states are going to be very aggressive about promoting electric cars. California has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles by 2020 and thus will likely have a lot more subsidies in the future.

A million electric cars = A lot of electricity being sucked out of the grid, how big the drain will be depends on the size of the battery in the car, how fast the car is charged and the duration/range the car is capable of.

From a standard 120-volt socket an electric car draws 1,500 watts. By comparison, a medium-sized air conditioner or a countertop microwave that is in use draws about 1,000 watts.

The car can be charged faster however when plugged into a home charging station. The first Leafs and Volts can draw 3,300 watts, and both carmakers have plans to boost that to 6,600 watts. The Tesla Roadster, an electric sports car with a huge battery, can draw 16,800 watts.

A modest home in the San Francisco Bay area (without air conditioning) uses 3,000 watts at most. Thus various neighbourhoods will need upgrades to the neighborhood transformer when the usage from single homes suddenly skyrockets from 3,000 to 6,000+ or even 20,000.

Replacing a neighborhood transformer costs a utility between $7,000 and $9,000, according to SoCal Edison. Fortunately this is work a utility will often want to do, but it often requires government approval.

Utility executives hope the popularity of electric cars will grow as the vehicles’ costs come down and as public charging stations are made available at malls and along highways. They know there will be problems with blown fuses and fried transformers, but they also know its a huge market that will pour lots of extra cash into the system and allow them to spend more on solar and wind projects.

Why? Because everyone wants to go green, its just a matter of getting there.

See Also
Can Electric Cars be Sexy?
Mitsubishi Electric Car
Car Sharing is the Future
Green Cars in 2020
Converting Hybrids into Electrics
The Eco-Car Battleground
Hydrogen Power

Electricity rates in Ontario slashed 10%

CANADA - Ontario's Liberal government has decided Ontarians are paying too much for electricity (or as we call it locally "hydro"). Thus they've decided to slash hydro bills by a whopping 10% starting January 1st 2011.

It will cost the province $1 billion per year and it will only effect homes and small businesses (corporations, factories, etc. will still pay the full rate).

The problem you see is that electricity in Ontario costs about 13.5 cents per kWH to produce, but its sold for approx. 6.5 cents each. The province ends up paying almost 50% of the cost.

So in reality this reduction is nothing new. Ontario has been subsidizing electricity rates since the beginning.

The average hydro bill in Ontario about $125 a month, so this $12.50 / month reduction will save ratepayers about $150 each / year... you will know this because the price discount will be mentioned on your bill as the new “Ontario Clean Energy Benefit” reduction, just above taxes.

This in essence decreases the amount people in Ontario pay, despite the 8% increase due to HST's introduction back in Summer 2010. By roughly 2% overall.

Expect more tax breaks and other things coming in the near future too. Its an election year and the next provincial election is set for October 6th 2011.

The Liberals have also trimmed Ontario's budget.

And there is also plans to scrap the “debt-retirement fees” of around $10 a month from the old Ontario Hydro corp. It is due to come off bills in 2016 anyway, but they might scrap it early to make voters happy if they can cobble together $5 billion towards the project.

In September, an Angus Reid poll found 86% of Ontarians feel “it is harder now than it was two years ago to make ends meet.” Thus helping voters pay for their bills (of which electricity is a chief complaint) is the right direction if they want to get more votes.

While they are a it they need to start pressuring Ottawa on a list of things that should be exempt from HST:

#1. Healthy Food. (This might require grocery stores to include the tax with the price of unhealthy "junk food", but would result in most vegetables, meats, milk, cheese, etc. coming in at a lower price. Ontario has been debating for years of putting a tax on junk food. This would be the opposite, a tax exemption on healthy food.

#2. Children's Educational Materials.

#3. Fitness Equipment, Gym Memberships and Bicycle Equipment.

#4. Green Cars: Hybrids, Electrics, Hydrogen-powered.

#5. University Books.

Some of these used to be exempt from PST or GST, but when the HST came into effect they lost all the exemptions. You can probably come up with a list of things you'd like to see exempt from HST.

The only snag is that Ontario needs Ottawa's permission to get exemptions in...

So what if Ontario created something which is the OPPOSITE of a tax? For example an "Healthy Food Reduction" which appears on bills right before the taxes are applied. Say 10%.

In one pocket and out the other.

God Vs. Climate Change?

ENVIRONMENT/RELIGION - According to U.S. House of Representatives' John Shimkus, who is currently being touted as the future chairman of the Congressional committee that deals with energy and environmental concerns, climate change should not concern Americans because God has already promised not to destroy the Earth.

Ahem.

Yesterday Shimkus, an evangelical Christian and a Republican from Illinois, announced his desire to become chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, one the most powerful committees because it effects energy policy, environmental initiatives and public health. Shimkus is already on the committee, but now he wants to be chairman.

In 2009, Shimkus dismissed the dangers of climate change and the warnings of scientists by quoting the Bible.

First, Shimkus quoted Genesis 8:21-22:

“Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done."

“As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.”

“I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation,” Shimkus said.

Then Shimkus quoted Matthew 24:31:

“And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other.”

“The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood,” says Shimkus. “I do believe that God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”

So yeah, no floods coming... But rising sea levels, droughts, plagues, pestilence, and so forth... its all on the agenda now. Americans sure seem to WANT an apocalypse to happen, but they will likely be disappointed when such things do happen.

What Shimkus apparently is ignoring is that God is also a vengeful god. According to the Bible mankind was placed here to be caretakers of the Earth. If we mess it up, God will punish us. Take from that what you will.

The Republicans grew in power during the recent Congressional elections, which means the committee will shift to Republican leadership.

So yeah... if you're American and worried about the environment you might as well kiss the planet goodbye for as long as whackjobs like Shimkus are put in power.

The Hydrogen Bandwagon

CARS - Ford, Renault-Nissan, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Daimler, Chrysler, Kia, Toyota, Lotus, BMW, Volkswagon and numerous other car manufacturers are all building their own versions of hydrogen-powered cars which will be sold on the mass market. Almost every major manufacturer is on the hydrogen bandwagon.

There's even a hydrogen supercar, hydrogen buses, hydrogen motorcycles and hydrogen bicycles coming out. Boeing and several other aviation giants are also making hydrogen powered airplanes.

It really makes you realize that hydrogen power is the way of the future. The only real delay is getting the infrastructure in place so we can power our cars this way... infrastructure which is dependent on having more electricity to create hydrogen using sea water.

But the good news is that electricity plants will now have something to do with all the excess electricity that is left over (they always produce more than is actually needed to prevent brown outs). That excess electricity can now be used to create hydrogen and government-owned electricity grids will be able to turn an extra profit by producing hydrogen (which currently costs about the same as gasoline).

In the meantime here is some videos for you to enjoy!







However they really need to do something about the ENV hydrogen motorcycle. Its just not "manly" enough for the average motorcyclist. Give it some noises, up the horsepower, make it bigger and more impressive. They can still sell the wimpy version to those people who just want to get to work/etc, but most motorcyclists are in it for the enjoyment and need more than 8 horsepower. The ultra-light version might sell well in countries that want a cheap go-to vehicle, but it won't be popular in North America.

Bruce nuclear overbudget and behind schedule

CANADA/TECHNOLOGY - BNPD (Bruce Nuclear Power Development)'s refit of two reactors north of Kincardine at Bruce Power’s two nuclear plants is $1 billion over budget and the price tag is continuing to skyrocket.

This is nothing new. Nuclear power in Canada is ALWAYS overbudget, always costs more than the estimates claim it will cost, is always delayed / behind schedule, and ultimately is always more expensive to build than any other method of gaining electricity.

Hint, here is the order of the cheapest to the most expensive ways to make electricity: Hydro, geothermal, coal, oil, gas, tidal, wind, solar, nuclear. On a per kilowatt basis nuclear power requires the most money to build and costs the most to maintain.

The only advantage that nuclear power has is that it is seen as a clean alternative to coal.

Yesterday TransCanada Corp. reported that refurbishing the two nuclear reactors of the Bruce A nuclear plant has cost $3.8 billion so far. And they're three years behind schedule...

The original price estimate in 2005 was $2.75 billion, which means they are already $1.05 billion overbudget... and according to their estimates the nuclear plant won't be ready to be restarted for test trials until approx. December 2011, with commercial operation beginning some time in 2012.

The original plan was to have everything up and working in 2009. So much for that pipe dream.

Meanwhile Canada apparently has some of the best geothermal technology in the world (and we've been selling it overseas), but the powers-that-be in Canada are still refusing to invest in one of the cheapest, most efficient ways to make electricity. See Canada dead last in Geothermal.

See Also:
Geothermal Heating Systems
How to Host a Geothermal Party
Ground temperatures in Canada rising

IKEA and Wal-Mart going Green Energy

ENVIRONMENT - IKEA and Wal-Mart are both going green on the rooftops of their shopping centers across North America, but the difference is in how they are doing it.

In IKEA`s case they`re making a solid profit by generating electricity by installing 3,790 solar panels on the rooftops of IKEA stores in North York, Etobicoke and Vaughan. Altogether the 4,800 square meters of solar panels covers approx. 60% of a Canadian football field (Canadian football fields are bigger than American football fields) and will produce 960,000 kilowatt hours annually, enough for over 100 houses.

IKEA is being paid 71.3 cents per kilowatt hour, which means they pay off their investment faster and over time the price per kilowatt hour will drop until the province is paying a more reasonable rate.

For the province it means extra energy and for IKEA it means their store has an extra source of revenue and free electricity forever. Initially IKEA will get $684,000 in annual revenue from the investment of $4.6 million spent on the solar panels. As the price for the electricity will drop later as more and more companies get on the bandwagon eventually lots of buildings will have their own solar arrays and be putting electricity back into the grid.

Better yet, its cheaper to transmit electricity locally over short distances. Building power lines over long distances is expensive and the amount of electricity that is lost transmitting electricity over long distances is very wasteful.

IKEA is also planning to install geothermal units to make their stores cheaper to heat and cool.

IKEA says its solar installations are the biggest to be owned and operated by a commercial retailer in Canada.

But wait IKEA, you may not have that title for very long. Wal-Mart is also planning to get into the green energy business and as typical of the American goliath Wal-Mart wants to do in a big way.

Wal-Mart`s proposal right now is to build a wind turbine on top of its environmental demonstration store in Burlington. They still need approval from the Burlington Town Council, but if it goes ahead it could signal many more companies doing the same thing and Wal-Mart expanding that idea to put wind turbines on every store they own across North America... pending approval of course.

But the approval will likely get the go ahead because its on commercial land, not residential land or farms. Plus there is a 2nd turbine already being built nearby.

In this case the wind turbine is more for show than actual energy production. Burlington isn`t known for being particularly windy and the turbine will only be making about enough to power a couple houses.

Wal-Mart is also planning to get into the solar business and install geothermal in their stores to save money on heating and AC.

Just imagine is all the companies and corporations in North America realized the energy and money they could be saving by switching to green energy. People have no excuse not to explore their options.

New Ontario power planted axed

CANADA/ENVIRONMENT - The Ontario government has axed plans to build a dirty and controversial gas-fired power plant in Oakville. Community activists banded together to oppose the dirty power plant, threatening to overthrow MPP Kevin Flynn during the next election if the power plant went ahead. Flynn himself was against the plant and fought his own party over the divisive gas plant.

The new plant would have been next door to the Ford factory and close to homes and schools, but thankfully the plans to build the plant have been cancelled.

More so the power plant will not be built anywhere in Ontario. Period.

Instead the province will have to build more solar and wind projects to make up the difference... which means the windmill hating NIMBYs will just have to suck it up and remind themselves it could have easily been a gas-powered plant in their neighbourhood instead.

Some people just don't get it yet. Ontario has a power shortage. We need more electricity. We are either importing expensive electricty from the USA (which means your electricity rates will go up) or we have to build new sources of electricity... which means dirty coal, dirty gas, over-budget nuclear plants or lots of windmills and solar panels.

The proposed new gas plant would have provided 900 megawatts of power, but now that will be replaced with new supply and conservation efforts.

Residents opposed to the plant gained a lot of attention earlier this week when famed California activist Erin Brockovich, who successfully fought a polluting California power company, attended several fundraising events to help fight the plant.

Electric cars, failing grid, soaring rates

CANADA/TECHNOLOGY - According to Toronto Hydro's CEO Anthony Haines the electricity grid in Toronto can't handle the load of 10% of drivers buying and charging electric cars. At least not right now.

“If you connect about 10 per cent of the homes on any given street with an electric car, the electricity system fails,” Haines said Wednesday. “It basically can’t handle that load.”

Cities in Canada suck up most of the electricity in Canada, but produce comparatively little despite lots of rooftop space for solar panels and windmills. The problem is that the electricity grid isn't setup or designed to be taking in that much energy from so many different sources, so having a network of solar and wind systems wouldn't work right now anyway because the electricity grid is too archaic.

Ontario estimates that by 2020 5% of automotives in the province will be electric. Haines believes it could be even higher, especially in cities where electric cars make more sense for short distances.

However charging a car battery will triple the amount of electricity a typical home uses. If you're buying an electric car expect your bill to go way up. Worse, most people plug in their cars right after they get home from work... which is when power demand hits its peak.

In other words we're going to have brownouts. The problem therefore is finding a way to syphon and store electricity (see Ionized Gas a Solution for Energy Woes) so that the electricity grid is under less pressure during peak times of the day.

One way would be to have batteries which electric car owners can swap when they get home and the car battery charges slowly over a 24 hour period while they are gone.

Another way is for homeowners to produce their own electricity (solar and wind) and put that directly into their cars, except such systems would require 3 times more power / efficiency than currently available. (It would cost about $90,000 to $100,000 to install enough renewable energy to run both your house and car off it.)

Rising Electricity Rates

A new report out concludes that electricity rates in Ontario are expected to rise 6.7 to 8% annually for the next five years (a rise of 40% by 2015).

So even if people don't get electric cars they can expect their electricity bills to skyrocket. And if they do get an electric car, the average household can expect their bill to rise 320%...

But wait, remember many families often have two cars. What if they get TWO electric cars in their garage? Then their bill would rise 600%, taking into account the increase for both cars and the rising price of electricity.

Mind you gasoline prices are expected to keep rising over the next 5 years anyway. China and India were barely budding in the past decade when it comes to car sales, in the next decade we can escape cars in Asia to blossom.

See Also
Green Cars in 2020
The Eco-Car Battleground
Converting Hybrids into Electrics

American hypocrisy on Climate Change

By Ai Lung Nguyen - July 2010.

ENVIRONMENT/POLITICS - Awhile ago the Financial Times encouraged all European Union governments to approve stricter emissions targets, pointing out that it would encourage private investment in low emissions technology and benefit Europe's economy.

But when it comes time for the US government to do the same thing, its not stricter emission targets... its the watering down of emission targets.

The United States Senate spent this past week arguing the best ways to water down greenhouse gas emissions targets because some of them have it stuck in their silly heads that such things would hurt the economy.

Question: How does better fuel efficiency hurt the economy?

The answer is it doesn't. It boosts the economy by making it cheaper to transport things. We have the technology to build more efficient cars, motors and engines that run on less energy but still provide the same amount of power and torque.

But because Americans are lazy they choose not to use the technology sitting right in front of them. How backwards is that?

The energy bill currently being debated calls for a 17% cut from 2005 emissions levels by 2020. It is frankly a ridiculously easy goal to achieve and you don't even have to cull SUVs to do it.

The automotive industry is minuscule compared the amount of CO2 being emitted from coal-burning electricity plants. Cut out just half of the coal burners and you will have reduced CO2 emissions by 17.5% right there. (Coal burning accounts for 35% of CO2 emissions in the USA.)

Replace the coal burners with nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind and other renewable resources and the problem is very quickly solved. And the building of such things creates local jobs, boosting the economy in the process.

According to 100% of peer-reviewed scientific reports the Earth is facing catastrophic climate change if global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius, which will result in massing storms, flooding, rising sea levels, droughts, and widespread destruction of crops and livestock.

Meanwhile European lawmakers are moving much more aggressively. They're calling for 30% reductions below 1990 levels by 2020. Asian countries like China, India, Japan and South Korea are likely to follow suit.

Meanwhile quite a few American cars can't even be sold overseas in Europe or Asia because they can't meet the efficiency standards. America's economy is largely dependent on automotive exports, but because American politicians can't get their act in gear the economy is floundering.

Canada dead last in Geothermal

CANADA/ENVIRONMENT - Canada has some of the biggest geothermal companies in the Pacific Rim, but none of them have a geothermal facility inside of Canada. They're all built in other countries as far south as Chile.

According to a new study in the 'Journal of Geophysics and Geoengineering' Canada could meet all of its energy needs, completely replacing coal and nuclear power, by drilling into the earth's crust and using steam to move turbines... but provincial and federal governments have been lagging behind on the geothermal capabilities despite Canada being a world leader in geothermal technology.

The study says that Canada has many promising locations where it could drill 3.5 to 6.5 km into the earth's crust, to depths where the surrounding rock has temperatures reaching 150 to 200 degrees C, pipe in water and then reap the benefits from high pressure steam turbines.

“Given the widespread distribution of geothermal energy, and the high energy content, the potential geothermal resource in Canada is significant,” concludes the study.

FACT: Canada is the only Pacific Rim country that doesn't have a conventional geothermal power plant. It has the leading geothermal developers... but they all build in Nevada, California, Nicaragua, Iceland, Chile, etc. because the local governments in those regions have realized the potential for geothermal to provide worry-free cheap energy which is constant, and unlike solar and wind, operates at full capacity 24/7 regardless of weather conditions.

Three years ago a different study concluded that geothermal projects could easily supply 100,000 megawatts of constant power, enough to fulfill 80% of Canada's current electricity needs.

Except Canada doesn't even have a single geothermal development program. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Canada's Environment Minister Jim Prentice can be reached here:

Tel.: 819-997-1441
Fax: 819-953-0279
Email: minister@ec.gc.ca

Environment Minister Jim Prentice
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
10 Wellington Street, 28th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3

How to Host a Geothermal Party

ENVIRONMENT - Sounds strange doesn't it? Think of it like a Tupper-Ware Party, but for something that will actually save your friends money.

Here's what you do... compile a list of websites, diagrams, photos, price estimates, companies all about geothermal technology and installation.

You could also research Climate Change and have material available on other topics, but that's not really the point here. Your primary goal is to help people SAVE MONEY on the heating and AC, the environmental benefits are just a bonus.

Then you set a date for when you want to host your party. Try to pick a day most people don't work, they're not on holiday or vacation and they should be able to make the effort to come to your party.

Next you start calling all your friends, co-workers and colleagues at home or at work on the business phones. Basically you want to invite everyone you know, including your local Toronto dentist (or wherever you happen to live). Don't bother inviting anyone who doesn't own a house or land. Apartment and condo-ites have no need for geothermal because they can't install it anyway.

Follow up with emails, Facebook and whatever other means you have available. Don't forget to remind people of the event a day or two before the actual event. (Some people need reminding otherwise they might forget and spend the day indoors watching reruns.)

Next if your party is outside remember to do some grass cutting before the big day , prune the hedges, clean up the flower beds, fix or replace lawn furniture, clean the pool, etc. If you're planning a BBQ feast remember to clean the BBQ itself. You want to make a good impression on your friends and co-workers so they won't be distracted by your dying rose bushes and the lawn which is so long they're getting an allergic reaction.

You could also hire someone to help plan the party for you. Toronto party rentals/events are pretty cheap/easy to organize, especially if you outsource some of the planning required. Most large cities have party planning companies with the experience and know-how to get the job done properly.

You can also get guest speakers, make a speech yourself, hire musicians and make a huge effort of it. If you invite representatives from local geothermal installation companies they can probably do a lot of the work for you.

California's Solar Financing

ENVIRONMENT - Its expensive to buy a $20,000 solar system for your home... even though you know its worth it in the long run because you end up saving money. The problem is the initial start up cash.

California however has come up with a solution known as "Financing Initiative for Renewable and Solar Technology" (or FIRST). Using the program municipalities issue bonds to the financial/private sector for investment and then grants 20-year, low-interest loans to homeowners who want to install a rooftop solar photovoltaic system. Depending on where you live a combination of solar/wind/geothermal is also available for loans.

The homeowner then pays off the loan via a small increase in their property taxes, thus if you sell your house later on the loan is transferred to the new owner. The savings from not having to pay an electric bill every month (or better yet, getting a cheque from the electric company for feeding back into the system) more than outweighs the increase in property taxes. Plus the interest rate on the loan is approx. 1% higher than the interest rate owed on the bonds, allowing the municipality to recoup the cost of administering the program.

Since the program first appeared in 2007 its spread all over the United States and is now endorsed by the White House and various other government agencies. It is being hailed by financial institutions and environmental groups as "brilliant" and commonly goes with the phrase "Why didn't we think of this sooner?"

Similar programs have since spread to Europe and Asia and its quickly becoming a global phenomenon.

So when will it be coming to Canada? Good question. Ask around in your local municipality because chances are likely it will be here soon (or faster if people start pushing for it).