Below is an informative video on the impact the meat industry is having on the environment.

Livestock and The Environment Video

Since little boy found magnifying glass, sun and ants, most children have already harnessed solar energy, an alternative energy source,  at a young age.   Watch the waves break on the shore, and imagine the energy potential.  Massive fissures in the earth put off untold Megawatts of power.   Alternatives to burning ancient dinosaur remains abound everywhere.  Do we really have an alternative to sustainable clean green energy?

Is Animal Extinction A Price We Are Willing To Pay?

After millions of years of evolution on this good earth, animals are going extinct in the blink of an eye.   While, energy is a primary force in all economies, at what point will our humanity kick in and address the destruction we are doing to our planet.

The truth is alternative energy sources are just part of the problem. As you may  know the beef industry is the biggest offender of all – but somehow protecting the “farmers way of life” and eating 99 cent hamburgers trumps millions of years of genetic perfection.  Al Gore seemed to have convenient amnesia with regards to this, as he has roots in ranching.

Green Energy Products – Alternatives Available

Can we really be called Earth’s caretakers?  Or are we more like little children knocking birds out of a nest, and then coming to the rescue, only to forget about them after a few days, leaving them to perish? We can all start having an impact with our vote, and with our pocket books.  We can choose to invest in Green Energy Products, which is often an investment that will pay off over time.

Many people have not heard of geothermal energy, which can be implemented on a massive scale, harnessing energy from fissures in the planet.  It can also be used on a local level using geothermal heat-pumps and geothermal for homes.

Large scale geothermal energy  can be drawn from several sources including hot water and steam reservoirs that are drilled deep in the earth.

Some States Will Benefit Most From Geothermal Energy and Geothermal Energy Uses

The states that will be able to harness this energy most efficiently are generally in the west, and include Alaska, California and Hawaii.

The nature of these geothermal resources allow them to be used in both large and small scales.

A utility can use the hot water and steam from reservoirs to drive generators and make electricity for its regional customers.

Geothermal Heat-Pumps and Geothermal for Homes

On a smaller scale, you can dig under the foundation of your house and harness the temperature difference to provide both heating and cooling through convection.

Some think that the raw power that lies in the magma deep within our earth may be a solution looking into the future.

It is clear that clean green energy is everywhere, we just need to learn how to harness it –  those are the geothermal facts jack!

Miners with a valid claim could gain full title to the land for a fee of $2.50 or $5.00, depending on the deposit mined, with proof that they had spent $500 in labor or money working the claim and that the claim really had economically worthwhile mineral de-posits on it. Since 1872 we have changed neither the dollar figures nor the requirements for gaining title. Consequently, the federal government has very little control over mining. The Bureau of Land Management did launch an effort in 1968 to cancel mining claims in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

Bureau of Land Management In Charge Of Rights

By 1974 the agency had identified 56,000 claims, but had only been able to cancel 5,600. The 1872 law still applies to gold, silver, iron, copper, lead, zinc, bauxite, uranium, and all the hard rock minerals. The “new” Minerals Leasing Act of 1920 adopts the philosophy that resources on public lands belong to everyone, but this law applies only to coal, oil and gas, oil shale, phosphates, potassium, sodium, and asphalt. The act contains no environmentally protective features. Other laws in other areas favor exploitation, too. Ad valorem timber laws, which tax remaining stands of trees, encourage clear cutting and sometimes force reluctant owners to cut in order to pay taxes.

Capital Gains and Mineral Rights

Capital gains treatment of profits from virgin materials, depreciation schedules, depletion allowances, and other federal tax write-offs subsidized extractive industries to the tune of $1.45 billion in 1971. A staff study done for the congressional Joint Economic Committee concluded that “the subsidies to timber, oil, and other minerals appear to provide incentives to use these resources in greater amounts and instead of other alternatives.” At the same time, federal, state, and local regulations have militated against reusing and recycling. Purchasing specifications based on materials instead of function (“virgin fibers only”) have this effect. Labeling standards originally intended to protect consumers (“reprocessed wool”) achieve the same result more subtly. Some programs, such as US Department of agriculture subsidies for lime and inorganic fertilizers, discourage the use of organic wastes. Discriminatory rates condoned by the Interstate Commerce Commission make it 2.5 times more expensive to ship ferrous scrap by rail than iron ore. The scrap averages 1.5 times the iron content of the ore.

Closing The Loop on Mineral Rights

Closing The Loop Our fundamental dilemma is that we have built an open system not unlike the digestive tract of an earthworm: one end gobbles up resources and the other end ejects wastes. Were our resources infinite, as the earth must seem to a worm, that would do. But our resources are finite, so we must find ways to approximate the worm Ourobouros, which was said to eat its own tail and never run out of food. We must join the ends of our system so our wastes become resources.

In a closed-loop system, however, our materials are not so useful to us the second time around because of the degeneration of energy described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We must hold as many of our materials as possible in the first cycle as long as we can. This is conservation. It will not make our resources infinite; it will only stretch them further. Conservation can be implemented by designing durable goods that can be reused many times before they must be broken down into raw materials for another cycle. We can conserve best by keeping resource requirements to a minimum instead of want only generating excesses, as in current packaging. Then, when a product has deteriorated beyond repair, we must recover its materials and use them again. This is recycling, and it is already being practiced by a few infant industries. We must derive our energy for this activity as much as possible from our only nearly- infinite source, the sun.

Green Energy Only Way to Close The Loop

A Utopian Vision We picture a society that designs its products well, so it takes years for them to break down. Washing machines are handed down from parent to child; cars run 15 years or more. Industries that do repairs flourish and employ versatile and skilled workers. When machines do deteriorate beyond repair, we call the municipal recycling agency, which is profitably selling basic materials from discarded goods.  A railroad carries sorted scrap to a regional reprocessor, which separates the principal ingredients and ships them off to steel mills, glass plants, and other basic industries. There, the scrap is mixed with a small amount of underbrush. It is hard to look at trees arranged like soldiers on a parade ground and think of the aggregate as a forest. Monocultural forests are more than a visual problem, however. Neither short- nor long-term effects of this kind of management are well understood. We do know that the more complex and diverse a natural community is, the greater is its stability. Monocultures are unstable communities that discourage resident wild animals, many of which depend on undergrowth for cover and nourishment. But “tree farms” proliferate. In western forests, removal of old growth exceeds the amount of new growth. In eastern forests, new growth exceeds removal—but only because 4 mature trees (slow growers) have already been cut.

The Relentless March of Deserts – Water Scarcity

The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that humanity has changed 9.1 million square kilometers of potentially productive land into desert. This process is what former UNEP Executive Director Maurice Strong called “the relentless march of deserts.” Water is the answer to some soil problems, but we are already having trouble stretching our water supply. North Americans now remove twice as much water from the hydrologic cycle as we return. In 1970 projected American water requirements for 1980 were about 700 billion gallons, but even technological optimists could only come up with a 1980 supply of 650 billion gallons. To supply water, particularly in the West and Southwest, we have tapped large aquifers—natural reservoirs in underground porous rock. Consequently, water tables have dropped sharply in areas of heavy withdrawal. Some aquifers will take tens or hundreds of thousands of years to replenish, and they may not refill at all if rock from which water was drained is compacted by the earth’s pressure.

Forests Diminishing – Not Quite a Renewable Resource

Land in California’s Central Valley is already subsiding. Replenishing trees cut from forests is a similar problem, although the time spans involved are shorter. A prime example of trees becoming nonrenewable resources are the once-vast redwood forests of California. The remnants of those forests are being clearcut rapidly, even to the point of endangering the world’s tallest trees inside the boundaries of Redwood National Park. Growing more redwoods the size of the ones we are now cutting would take 800 years or more. Unless man uses unprecedented restraint for many centuries, old-growth redwood is a non-renewable resource. Intensive forestry has become the rage in lumbering circles because it provides more wood per acre than other methods. Its practice includes such techniques as clear cutting large tracts and planting even-aged stands of a single species. This is management of trees as a crop, and “tree farm” has come into the language. Anyone can tell where this practice is being carried out, either from peeled hill-sides or from rows of trees of uniform height with no one, waste. Inorganic and organic wastes are a $6-billion-a-year problem. It costs us more than five million Btus of energy to collect and dispose of each of the 125 million tons of garbage we generate each year. But a study for the Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project suggests that crop residues, feedlot manures, and urban refuse could actually be used to generate more than four quadrillion Btus. This figure is expected to more than double over the next 25 years. Waste conversion could take the place of the pro-posed shale-oil industry. While our cities debate where to put the next landfill, they ignore the vast potential of the waste they try so hard to hide. It is easy to understand the main source of our problems with natural resources.

Our Country Was Founded On Exploitation of Resources

When our country was young, we deemed it advantageous to encourage the exploitation of resources. We were even anxious to give away public land to be used for private purposes, believing those uses would benefit the whole country. The country was built with re-sources virtually given to miners and with tax shelters granted to lumbermen. Now that we have built ourselves a culture and a country, we are slow to take back the concessions granted to resource-exploitative industries, even though those provisions harm us now.

The National Commission on Materials Policy concluded in 1973 that the US faces shortages of six of the 13 basic raw materials industry depends on, and by 1985 we can expect to rely on imports for another three. Finding domestic reserves of some is improbable, and exploring for others is growing more costly.

Non-Renewables Getting Expensive to Mine

Many companies now estimate that they must spend at least $20 million to locate one deposit worth developing; and that doesn’t include the costs of evaluating the deposit and preparing to mine. At constantly growing cost, we find ores of constantly decreasing quality. In the 1920s, it was uneconomic to mine copper ore that assayed less than 1.5 percent copper. In 1970 the ore could go down to 0.5 percent copper content, and in 1975, to 0.35 percent. Industries have improved their processing techniques to accommodate lower grades of ore, but further advances in technology, while feasible, would require scales of operation that are economically unfeasible. In some places, 100,000 tons of ore are already being handled daily. The profit is marginal. To develop technologies to process greater quantities might require capital investments that even governments could not afford. Processing greater quantities of materials would, in any event, be horrifyingly destructive. Possibly the most destructive course we have contemplated so far is extracting oil from shale.

Shale Oil Requires Too Much Water, Another Scarce Resource

A full-fledged shale-oil industry providing 6.4 quadrillion Btus of energy, as envisioned in bills before Congress in December 1975, would require 417 million gallons of water daily, enough to supply the household needs of the entire Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The industry would emit sulfur dioxides equal to thirteen 1,000-megawatt power plants burning western coal with-out any emission controls, and its solid wastes would be almost nine times the total US residential and commercial solid wastes generated in 1973. Those potential wastes are mountain peaks now; no one can compute the cost of converting vast areas of our wildest mountain country into piles of rubble. We consider such drastic measures because the import marketplace is unreliable. The oil embargo of 1973 proved that. What we have not yet fully realized is that the markets for other minerals are due for a similar jolt. We rely for essential minerals and nonferrous metals on developing countries that could flex their own resource muscles any time. Charles F. Park, Dean of Mineral Sciences at Stan-ford University for more than 28 years, said: “If the present trend toward nationalization continues, the industrialized nations will have to depend more and more upon purchases in the open market; they will no longer be able to own their mines and gear production to their needs. Serious problems of supply and pricing may be ahead for the nonferrous metals.” That last sentence could as easily read “ferroalloy metals,” which are used in relatively small quantities but are essential to industry. The US has a surplus of only one of these metals, molybdenum, and we must import a large percentage of the others from less developed nations. That is not to say we should be suspicious of less developed nations. But we must expect them to begin charging prices that reflect the true value of their resources. All the earth’s resources belong to all its people. The uneven distribution means that some people have custody over some materials, some people over others. We must be careful to distribute those resources so that all people have a chance to use what they really need, no matter where they live—or when. People of all nationalities must be included in the distribution, as must generations yet un-born. When less developed nations charge high prices for raw materials, they are helping to make sure that those who buy them really need them.

Non-Renewable Metals Too Expensive for Minting Coins

As for precious metals, some economists are already trying to deemphasize the role of these metals in monetary systems in order to free them for proliferating industrial uses. We import most of these metals. Finding substitutes for the precious metals is difficult, if not impossible. The properties that make them valuable are ones that cannot be duplicated. Technological optimists frequently argue that when one material is gone another will be found to substitute for it, but squandering our goods in expectation of the alchemist’s remedy is a dangerous strategy. The alchemist cannot change lead into gold if he has run out of lead. Another aspect of the nonrenewable resource shortage we must face is that public lands are a substantial source both of fuel and nonfuel minerals. In 1974, 45 percent of US sodium, 79 percent of our potash, and 14 percent of our phosphates came from federal lands. The majority of the nation’s phosphate reserves are on federal lands. The question we must ask ourselves is how much more of our common land we are willing to chew up and shovel into the privately-owned industrial maw.

We have made economics, which reflects only a tiny wedge of the truth of the “real world”, the principal determinant in decision-making, and therefore have come to measure everything in terms of money, ascribing secondary importance to other terms of measurement, and least importance to criteria that cannot be quantified at all.

Not all Product Output Can Be Measured – What about the Environment?

This is tragic, because most of the really important things cannot be measured, and certainly not in terms of money; they relate to levels of natural existence or human experience far above that. Extensive, mathematically sophisticated, and esoteric economic calculations might demonstrate, for example, that one machine will cost less than 100 workers in a certain production process, and therefore should be substituted for them. Who are we, who don’t know the differ-once between a second derivative and semi-log paper, to argue? But does one measure the “cost” of a worker, perhaps a craftsman, a fellow citizen and member of society, by the same yardstick used to measure a piece of machinery, a common product? To whom does one machine cost less than 100 workers? For how long? By what measurement that makes any sense at all? And as for the piece of machinery, are not the loss of the human skills it replaces and its dehumanizing impact on those who op-irate it to be considered a part of its cost? Obviously, if there is a diminishing quantity of re-sources, and our demands upon them grow from astronomical to even more astronomical each year, and all the while worldwide competition for them heightens and becomes more aggressive, prices are going to rise, not a little bit, not cyclically, but a great deal, steadily.

That’s not permitted in Economic theory, so economists grasp at the slightest hesitation in the trend to show that everything is going to be O.K. after all. We urgently need to study means of reorganizing agriculture and other critical industries in ways that minimize the use of energy, capital, and other material inputs, in-stead of maximizing their use, as is presently the case. The objective would be to attain adequate levels of production using the technologies most viable in the long run, probably labor-intensive and on a small enterprise basis, rather than seeking only to maximize short-run output or profits. Too many people are in jobs destructive to the human spirit, and too few have an opportunity for creative work. The statistics do not show this, they could not possibly do so, but it is nevertheless the real problem with employment and work today, and it is getting worse. If human satisfaction in work is made a consideration above, or even equal to, simple production efficiency in the generation of work-places, many creative and productive work opportunities previously precluded by production maximization economics will become available, and what is today called un-employment will take care of itself. The costs of production, however wasteful the product or production process might be, are not taxed; only profits are, and it is left pretty much to the producer to decide which costs are necessary.

This is equivalent to taxing individuals not in accordance with income, but in accordance with what they report as left (their “profits”) after they have decided what costs are necessary to enable them to do whatever they declare themselves to be doing, whether or not there is any value to anyone else in what they do, and whether or not it is done in the least-cost way. Is it not strange that the cost of delivering raw materials to a factory or a product to your door is not taxed, but the expense you might incur commuting to work or driving to the store to pick up that same product is taxed? We have been taught that the costs of producing products are legitimate; the costs of producing our own satisfactions are not.

GNP Keeps Rising Based on Your Purchase Of Products

The engine that drives production maximization is dissatisfaction, coupled with the promise that products can relieve it. But products can never relieve it, because if they delivered on the promise we would no longer feel impelled to strive forever higher incomes so that we can buy ever more products. If we did not feel deprived, Madison Avenue would be considered a failure, as it would in fact be, and the entire economic superstructure based on this deprivation-driven production maximization would cool-lapse. Since this has been the path we have taken to what we have called our “development”, it is what we have tried to transfer to “underdeveloped” countries so that they can get to where we are.

Let there be no mistake or euphemistic distortion about it: generally speaking, our international development efforts have been based on the notion that we can increase human satisfaction by generating feelings of deprivation, teaching that these can be relieved by the agencies of a “modern” economy and the products they bring, and then showing how to go about it. But our own experience has shown that this cannot work. You can teach people to make more and more products; and you can industrialize a country; and you can urbanize a country; and you can destroy its culture and social cohesion in the process of “modernizing” it; and you can make it dependent upon the vagaries of the international market for its viability—all this and more has been and is being done to “underdeveloped” countries—but you can never increase general human satisfaction this way because dissatisfaction is what makes it work and keeps it running. Since making and selling products is but one small part of a culture, and serves social development only in a small way, particularly in countries traditionally not product-oriented, the notion of teaching, encouraging, even forcing foreign nations to redirect all energies to production and consumption at a faster and ever-increasing rate and calling that “development assistance” is worse than an absurdity. We are always busy trying to “modernize” the agriculture of product-poor countries. We drive people off the farms; build highways; bring in tractors that make them dependent upon us and the world for parts, fertilizers, chemical poisons, and what not to teach them to work in factories instead of their extended households during the slow season; destroy family and community life; disrupt religious cycles; pollute and destroy the countryside; create an army of unemployed urban squatters; and in general turn all but the already rich and powerful into miserable unsatisfied production maximizers and product consumers. And for what? So that they can earn the foreign exchange to buy the things they need to sup-port such a system? To increase their agricultural yield which now becomes dependent on foreign inputs and totters when the price of oil rises?

Are you Deprived Without Products?  The Environment Certainly Is

To buy the products, including ours, that we have taught them to feel deprived without? The consequence of this “development” is to obliterate ways of life much older than ours. . . . No nation or government could possibly suggest to an-other how it should develop. If a government cannot figure that out for itself, it must be completely out of touch with its people, to whom it would do well to turn for advice rather than turning to foreign “experts”, the vast majority of whom have never even participated in development planning in their own countries. The drive, means, and plan for development must come from within a nation, rooted in the many facets of its cultural essence, building upon what was already there in all areas of human activity, and relying upon its own resources. If asked, we may be able to help others design better tools from local materials; achieve better health and nutrition within their environments; even make better basic products for local consumption to increase self-reliance; and, of course, always stand ready to provide disaster relief if at all possible. There is a valid distinction between lending a brotherly hand and meddling.

GNP and value of the national economic Product not Equal

The confusion between the amount of money made (GNP) and the value of the national economic product has deep and disquieting moral as well as practical implications. J.K. Galbraith pointed out many years ago that to strive for growth in money terms (GNP) alone is to declare that it is legitimate to be concerned with how much is produced, to the exclusion of concern with the actual value of what is produced. Thus, an appliance made in a shabby manner, deceptively or otherwise sold at an unfair profit, requiring many supplements for its effective operation, wasteful of resources, needing constant repairs, and wearing out quickly will result in the making of more money, i.e. will contribute more to the GNP, than a well-made, effective, and durable version sold at a fair profit. Similarly, the destruction of or failure to build an adequate, mass transit system leads to more cars, more gas stations, more auto accessories, more auto repairs, more auto insurance, more parking lots, more highways and road repairs—in short, much much more GNP— while creating much more pollution and perhaps human misery, and in the end providing much worse transit effectiveness than would have been the case with a proper public system.

Those products employing lead, asbestos, vinyl chloride, poison chemicals, and other lethal or dangerous materials in their manufacture contribute more to the GNP than safe alternatives, the production and use of which do not re-quire regulation enforcement, litigation, lobbying, and precautionary procedures, or medical treatment for victims. Selling a part of the harvest abroad, where it will fetch higher profits while driving up prices and depriving segments of society of adequate diets domestically, will produce a higher GNP than will a policy of national nutritional self-sufficiency.

In general, the more wasteful, inept, shortsighted, duplicative, uncoordinated, given to malfunction, non-durable, unfair, and inflationary our products and production techniques, the greater will be the GNP. The present GNP concept makes sense as the principal means of assessing the economy only if the sole purpose of the economy is to facilitate the making of money.

Most systems are passive, meaning they transfer the heat of the sun directly to water, which is mixed into the main system.

I spent quite some time in Costa Rica, where I experienced the power of the sun first hand. All water is pumped up to a water-tower where it is stored in a big black cistern.

At certain times of the day, the water was scalding.

If you expose enough black pipes directly to sunlight, and periodically pump the heated water into your main system, you are good to go.

Many variations of these Solar Hot Water Heaters exist.  The biggest issue with these systems is simply maintenance.  Water in external pipes are exposed to the elements and corrosion from the water, and thus are prone to leakage.

Solahart  Solar Hot Water Heaters

Solahart is one of the leading manufacturers of solar hot water heaters.

They are from Austrailia, where the sun is strong, and years of experience have helped hone in on this efficient system.

Solahart Systems

Model:Streamline Split System The Solahart Streamline combines high efficiency roof mounted collector panels with a ground-mounted tank.

The low profile and unobtrusive Solahart Streamline collector panels are mounted on a North facing roof, whilst the storage tank can be mounted at ground level out of sight. This minimizes the visual impact of going solar, while maximizing the potential savings from the sun.

Streamline Solar Hot Water Heater

The Streamline uses copper risers in its collector panels, which transfer the solar energy directly to the water as it circulated through the panels by an electric circulator. The heated water is stored in the ground-mounted tank.

The Streamline SBT models with their high efficiency, blue sputtered copper collectors and unique tapered risers are suitable for use in frost prone areas below 800m altitude, however they are not recommended in areas with harsh water supply.

Streamline Electric boosted models can even be installed inside, hidden in a cupboard or placed out of sight in a plant room, further adding to their appeal. The booster element is suitable for connection to either ‘continuous’ or ‘off-peak’ tariff, giving you the option to save even more on your energy bill.

Key Features: Save 50% to 85%* of water heating energy consumption Minimal visual impact Specifically designed for medium to high solar gain areas Frost resistant with SBT collector panels Electric or gas boosting Peace of mind with Solahart’s 5 year conditional warranty

Model: The Solahart L Series is a roof mounted, open circuit solar water heater specifically designed to provide economical service in medium to high solar gain areas.

The L Series is ingenious in its simplicity. The black polyester powder coated aluminum absorber collects the sun’s heat and transfers it to the water in the 6 risers.

Copper is used for the risers for its high thermal conductivity ensuring the maximum amount of heat energy is passed to the water. As the water in the risers is heated, it rises into the tank to be replaced by cooler water from the tank. The solar heated water is then stored ready for use. – Hot water free from the sun.

The L Series has a double-coated ceramic lined tank with a protective anode. The L Free Heat offers an extended warranty and includes enhanced protection, providing even longer lasting performance for absolute peace of mind.

Key Advantages to Solar Hot Water Heater

Key features: Save 50% to 80%* of water heating energy consumption Optimum efficiency in medium and high solar gain areas makes the L Series an economical choice Specifically designed for medium to high solar gain areas Double coated, ceramic lined tank for longer life Electric or gas boosting Peace of mind with Solahart’s comprehensive warranty 10/5/5 for L Free Heat 5/5/5 for L Series

Model:  The Solahart J Free Heat and J Series are ideal where there are medium to high levels of solar radiation.
The high efficiency black polyester powder coated absorber maximizes the transfer of available solar energy while the closed circuit design makes it suitable for frost prone and poor water quality areas.

The J Series utilizes Solahart’s revolutionary multi-flow collector panel which uses a huge 35 risers to extract the maximum amount of energy from the sun.

The double ceramic lined tank has been developed for long life and the J Free Heat features additional protection for longer lasting performance. The tank can be equipped with an electric or gas booster or, alternatively, an in line gas booster is available.

Key Features:
Save 50% to 80%* of water heating energy consumption
Specifically designed for medium to high solar gain areas
Frost resistant
Suitable for locations with poor water quality
Double coated, ceramic lined tank for longer life
Electric or gas boosting
Peace of mind with Solahart’s comprehensive warranty
10/5/5 for J Free Heat
5/5/5 for J Series

Model:  The roof mounted Kf Free Heat and Kf Series are the ultimate in solar water heaters.

They have been specifically designed to deliver high efficiency in Australia’s cooler climates and utilise our slimline double-coated ceramic lined tank to provide years of service.The ultra-high efficiency absorber with its Black Chrome Selective surface maximises the absorption of available solar energy while the closed circuit design makes it suitable for frost prone and poor water quality areas.

The Kf Series features Solahart’s revolutionary multi-flow collector panel which uses a huge 35 risers to extract the maximum amount of energy from the sun.

The Kf Free Heat offers an extended warranty and includes enhanced protection providing even longer lasting performance for more absolute peace of mind. The tank can be equipped with an electric or gas booster, or alternatively, an inline gas booster is available.
Key Features:

• Maximum efficiency for maximum savings
• Save 60% to 90%* of water heating energy consumption
• Suitable for low solar gain areas ensuring consistent supply
• Frost resistant
• Suitable for locations with poor water quality
• Double coated, ceramic lined tank for longer life
• Electric or Gas boosting
• Enhanced protection on Free Heat Series

Mississippi Environmental Quick Facts

• Mississippi produces oil and gas but not enough to meet high in-State demand.
• A single reactor at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Station supplies nearly one-fourth of the electricity generated within the State.
• A major propane supply hub is located at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, where the Dixie Pipeline has a network of terminals and storage facilities.
• Two liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals have been proposed near Pascagoula, Mississippi, one of which is currently under construction.
• Mississippi is one of the few States that allow the use of conventional motor gasoline statewide.

S. Carolina Quick Environmental Facts

• South Carolina’s four nuclear power plants typically supply more than one-half of the State’s electricity generation.
• South Carolina receives most of its coal from Kentucky.
• Industry is the State’s largest energy-consuming sector and accounts for nearly two-fifths of total energy consumption.
• Two new nuclear reactors could come online in South Carolina by 2016, if licensing and construction go as planned.
• Per capita electricity use in South Carolina is higher than the nationwide average, due in part to high air-conditioning demand during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating in winter.
• South Carolina has adopted energy standards for public buildings and other energy-reduction goals that together are meant to reduce energy use by 20 percent from 2000 levels by July 1, 2020.

south_carolina_energy

South Carolina Environmental Map

N.C. Environmental Quick Facts

• North Carolina is one of the top nuclear power producers in the United States.
• The Dixie Pipeline, a major supplier of propane to the Southeast, terminates in Apex, North Carolina, where a terminal and above-ground storage tanks are located.
• North Carolina’s electricity consumption is among the highest in the Nation.
• North Carolina ranks among the top 10 States in wind power capacity and several rivers in western and central North Carolina provide hydroelectric power.

North_Carolina_Energy

North Carolina Environmental MAP

N. Dakota Quick Environmental Facts

North Dakota Energy Map

South Dakota Energy Profile

South Dakota Energy Profile

Nevada Quick Energy Facts

Nevada Energy Profile

New Mexico Energy Profile

New Mexico Energy Profile

New York Environmental Quick Facts

New York Energy Profile

Florida Environmental Quick Facts

Florida Environmental Map

The Details of Colorado Energy Policy

Colorado Energy Map and Environmental Information

Colorado Energy Profile

Add Your Own Comment Below on the Colorado State Energy Profile – Do you have the inside scoop?

The Details of California Energy Policy

California Energy Map and Environmental Information

CA Environmental MAP

Add Your Own Comment Below on the California State Energy Profile Below – Do you have the inside scoop?

The Details of Arizona Energy Policy

Arizona Energy Map and Environmental Information

Arizona Energy Profile

Add Your Own Comment on the Arizona’s State Energy Profile Below – Do you have the inside scoop?

The Details of Alaskan Energy Policy

Arizona Energy Map and Environmental Information

Alaska Energy Profile

Add Your Own Comment Below on the Alaskan State Energy Profile – Do you have the inside scoop?

How about Geothermal?

I’m a big believer that our energy policy should take the path of least resistance, use wind where wind exists, solar where sun exists, and geothermal where geothermal exists.

Many people have not heard of geothermal energy, which can be implemented on a massive scale, harnessing energy from fissures in the planet.

This heat can be drawn from several sources including hot water and steam reservoirs that are drilled deep in the earth.

The states that will be able to harness this energy most efficiently are generally in the west, and include Alaska, California and Hawaii.

The nature of these geothermal resources allow them to be used in both large and small scales.

A utility can use the hot water and steam from reservoirs to drive generators and make electricity for its regional customers.

On a smaller scale, you can dig under the foundation of your house and harness the temperature difference to provide both heating and cooling through convection.

Some think that the raw power that lies in the magma deep within our earth may be a solution looking into the future.

I tried digging to China once when I was a kid – never made it.

Do We have an Alternative to Green Energy?

Alternate Resources Locator

Since little boy found magnifying glass, sun and ants, most children have already harnessed renewable energy at a young age.   Watch the waves break on the shore, and imagine the energy potential.  Alternatives to burning ancient dinosaur remains abound everywhere.

After millions of years of evolution on this good earth, animals are going extinct in the blink of an eye.   While, energy is a primary force in all economies, at what point will our humanity kick in and address the destruction we are doing to our planet.

The truth is energy is only a part of the problem,  as we know the Beef industry is the biggest offender of all – but somehow protecting the “farmers way of life” and eating 99 cent hamburgers trumps millions of years of genetic perfection.  Al Gore seemed to have convenient amnesia with regards to this, as he has roots in ranching.

Can we really be called Earth’s caretakers?  Or are we more like little children knocking birds out of a nest, and then coming to the rescue, only to forget about them after a few days, leaving them to perish?

Below is an informative video on the impact the meat industry is having on the environment.  Perhaps we need an alternative food source?