Free At Last

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: christofjahnsen @ 04/09/2009 11:31:57 AM

    After the elections in US, the world seems to started to change its direction to a better way. At this point, Mr. Obama is the most effective factor and I think Obama will contibute a lot of thins to the World Peace. On the other hand, Mr. Obama may not enough to do this alone, there are some key countries at some of different points in the world. The most important and key country is TURKEY. Because Turkey is a key, a bridge between Europe, Asia and Middle East... Turkey has not only geopolitical advantage, also cultural and religious advantage to contribute world peace. I look forward to see all of the world leaders at the same desk. Because I really want peace not only fo some of countries, for all of the world.

  • Posted By: YoursTruely @ 04/09/2009 3:19:01 AM

    By reducing ones energy requirements it is possible to become personally energy independant by using available clean energy resources such as solar and wind. The mercury in CFL lightbulbs are personally and invronmentally harmful. There's a new type of lightbulb called the Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL). It uses one watt to produce the equivelnt light of a standard 65-watt light bulb. There's no mercury in it.

  • Posted By: kurtisz @ 04/09/2009 2:45:05 AM

    I'm going to disagree with everyone. Why don't we stop fooling around and instead of spending billions on social engineering, we change the dynamic altogether? Instead of 8,500+ earmarks(wind & nod), how about we put thousands to work installing solar panels & windmills on ALL homes and businesses. Gee, now, that wouldn't make any sense would it? We would be polluting the earth with the materials and processes required to make the solar panels, right?! Right NOW we should do this to stimulate the economy, provide jobs, and guess what else? We will save hundreds of dollars possibly each month per household or business, and now get ready... We would be harvesting free energy the sun and earth already provide. President Obama, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, T. Boone Pickens, I've only written to one of you once before. Now who is with me?
    courtesy-kurtisz

  • Posted By: Aditya Mookerjee @ 04/08/2009 9:42:56 PM

    I cannot disagree with Mr Zakaria on any of his valid arguments. However, I would like to make observations on another topic. The United States is not alone, when she vehemently tries to protect the values so important to her democracy. In the Middle East, there are cultures which have followers as protective of them as are the Americans, of their own culture. Perhaps, the present militant crises in the Islamic World, is because the Islamists find their culture threatened. The United States must be vigilant, that the other cultures and nations do not alienate themselves towards themselves because of the United States.

  • Posted By: Aditya Mookerjee @ 04/08/2009 9:31:57 PM

    I cannot disagree with Mr Zakaria on the points pertaining to efficient energy utilization, that he has expressed. However, on another topic, I would like to make an observation. Just as the cultural values of The United States and how The United States can relate to the values is important to her, so it is for the other cultures of the globe, to relate as vividly to the values dear to them. Hence, The United States are not alone in this state of affairs. The way forward is not to have a clash of cultures, but to cultivate understanding for each others cultures, as much as possible.

  • Posted By: jb43 @ 04/08/2009 11:30:56 AM

    As long as we are dependant on a "fuel" of any kind, there will be those who will control it at the expense of others. I doubt that we will ever gain true independance...only the appearance of it.

  • Posted By: mike_in_warsaw @ 04/08/2009 4:43:06 AM

    Zakaria is correct in his general assessment, but just once I wish the real pioneers of efficiency and sustainability were given credit for their work. McDonough borrows heavily from the work of Walter Stahel, a noted industry analyst (and trained architect) from Switzerland who is widely considered to be the priniciple founder of modern industrial sustainability - and who not only coined the phrase 'cradle to cradle', but also worked with the companies McDonough and Friedman cite in their books. To help clear up many misunderstandings in the field and give credit where it is due - as well as for a good fundamental overview of the 'green' principles and practices helping to make astute companies more profitable - download the free book 'Managing the New Frontiers' which is currently being distributed by the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) in Brussels, Belgium on its website (www.efmd.org/publications), as well as the websites of the University of Surrey (www.ces-surrey.org.uk) in England, Kozminski University (www.wspiz.edu.pl) in Warsaw, Poland, and the Birla Institute of Management Technology (www.bimtech.ac.in) in India.
    This book is very easy to read, it covers most of the basics, and it's FREE!

  • Posted By: Mark Goldes @ 04/07/2009 7:17:52 PM

    Revolutionary energy breakthroughs are likely to emerge from the laboratories before this year is out. They promise inexpensive alternatives to fossil and uranium fuels.

    The science and technology is radically new and will not easily be believed. Independent laboratory validations and initial production of products will overcome understandable skepticism.

    Future power plants, much less expensive than nuclear and coal, are on the horizon. Blacklight Power has announced production later this year. Our own firm is pioneering other approaches to the same goal.

    Cars, trucks and buses are becoming possible that will need no fossil fuel or battery recharge. Moreover, where utilities cooperate, they will be able to become power plants when parked, selling electricity to the local power company. Imagine the market for vehicles that can be expected to pay for themselves.

    These green systems can spread very rapidly once it is recognized that the potential is real.

    The great depression ended with World War II. The present economic disaster can end with a rapid expansion of radically new energy technology. Several firms across the planet are emerging to point the way.

  • Posted By: Mark Goldes @ 04/07/2009 7:15:45 PM

    Revolutionary energy breakthroughs are likely to emerge from the laboratories before this year is out. They promise inexpensive alternatives to fossil and uranium fuels.

    The science and technology is radically new and will not easily be believed. Independent laboratory validations and initial production of products will overcome understandable skepticism.

    Future power plants, much less expensive than nuclear and coal, are on the horizon. Blacklight Power has announced production later this year. Our own firm is pioneering other approaches to the same goal.

    Cars, trucks and buses are becoming possible that will need no fossil fuel or battery recharge. Moreover, where utilities cooperate, they will be able to become power plants when parked, selling electricity to the local power company. Imagine the market for vehicles that can be expected to pay for themselves.

    These green systems can spread very rapidly once it is recognized that the potential is real.

    The great depression ended with World War II. The present economic disaster can end with a rapid expansion of radically new energy technology. Several firms across the planet are emerging to point the way.

  • Posted By: dork1234566 @ 04/06/2009 5:45:21 PM

    First of all, that lightbulb those guys are touching must be really hot. Second of all, I didnt read the whole article, but after reading some of the comments, I can get the gist. Nuclear power is not the solution, so we shouldn't be waiting around for that. Nuclear power has a permanent by product that pollutes the Earth just as bad as CO2. The real solution is geothermal power, wind power, tide power, and solar power. All of which do not require any sort of limited resource, and all of which do not have an unnatural bye-product other than maybe solar, which could be made from some harmful chemicals. And by the way, those lightbulbs in the picture are more harmful to the environment than their predecessor. They have Mercury in them. Most people do not know this, and they end up throwing them in the garbage. Guess whats going to show up in our drinking water in the future when with these things sitting in the garbage dumps for the next 100 years. Use LED lightbulbs. They are expensive but they last forever.

    • Posted By: Geophysicist @ 04/06/2009 10:03:57 PM

      Hey dork (you gave yourself that name not me), do you know what the half life is of the highly radioactive components of nuclear waste? Perhaps you should check that out before making such broad claims about nuclear waste. You will be shocked at how short it is. Also, recycling of spent fuel could play a significant rule in providing more energy while reducing waste at the same time. Unfortunatley, recycling is a political football. Our politicians need to grow a spine and do what is right for the country and stop bowing to the fear mongering of environmentalists.

      True, there is a limited supply of uranium but the U.S. and other friendly cuntries like Canada, Australia, and Khazakstan have hundreds of years of supply. Recycling could extend that supply even more. I would like to think that in 100 to 300 years we will have developed additional sources of power to replace nuclear.

      • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 04/06/2009 11:11:04 PM

        How about this then...we put all the nuclear waste from these so called "environmentally friendly" power plants in your back yard. Not in a Mountain thousands of miles from where you live. Right...didn't think you were up to that. Wind can be used jsut as efficiently and without the harmful side effects.

        • Posted By: Graystoke @ 04/07/2009 5:11:54 PM

          Please do some more research on the recycling of nuclear waste. You'll find that the disposal has totally changed. The trainloads of nuclear waste heading across the country to someone else's backyard is not today's reality. You'll also see that the use of nuclear energy is increasing in most other advanced countries - and not just North Korea! It is the most efficient energy source we have on earth and is also one of the safest and cleanest.

        • Posted By: gregcovert @ 04/06/2009 11:17:18 PM

          those tree huggers don't like their landscape riddled with a bunch of windmills:)

          • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 04/07/2009 1:36:10 PM

            Well I can't recall that I saw a single tree in Wyoming. There must be some very lonely tree huggers out there.

          • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 04/06/2009 11:26:58 PM

            If you gave them the choice of windmills, and solar panels or Chernobyl I think you'd get the answer I'm implying. I know I would give that answer.

            • Posted By: underdog @ 04/07/2009 12:51:02 AM

              I always wondered if the proponents of wind realize the size of the windfarm it would take to power just 80% of Chicago? After reading most of the comments here I begin to see that the people that want "green" are kind of lacking on the technical side. Before you talk about wind, or solar, read up on the actual power output. All the choices will be market driven. If the cost is too high people will not pay, and rightly so

        • Posted By: Geophysicist @ 04/07/2009 10:47:29 AM

          Basedrum, bring it on. I will accept the waste in my county becasue I know what the true hazards are. I have been to Yucca Mountain, as a geophysicist I have studied the issue in depth and have a thorough understanding of the minimal hazards. People need to get educated from those who are truely experts and not from Newsweek articles; although this author did make many valid points. As far as wind power, I have nothing against it other than it is very expensive and it does have an environmental consequence just like everything else. I suggest wind advocates talk with members of the Audobon Society in Wyoming where wind farms are displacing sage grouse.

  • Posted By: austin c @ 04/07/2009 11:16:55 AM

    The guys in charge of the energy plan are mostly lawyers or Nobel prize winners, not engineers. The wind and solar power are unsteady electric power supplier. they are expensive to build or install. Currently, their production has been greatly slow down due to short of capitals as a result of economic meltdown. I have seen one example of solar application which cost seven million dollars to install, but can only generate about sixty thousand dollars worth of electricity per year, that means, it will take over one hundred years to recover the initial cost. Nuclear and hydro power are clean energy, but they are not in the current energy plan.

    • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 04/07/2009 1:30:36 PM

      Maybe we should build windmills around Washington D.C. and harness some of that hot air.

  • Posted By: rramjet @ 04/07/2009 11:50:31 AM

    Take the enviromentalist's and EPA who oppose drilling ANYWHERE in the US and charge them with Treason!! They only aide and abet the Islamic nations we are fighting. Make examples of those charged and alot of this liberal, let's destriy America will end!!!

    • Posted By: jblackwell88 @ 04/07/2009 1:29:42 PM

      Any new oil we tap is just going to be sold on the market at the going price. China and India will buy that oil if they're willing to pay more. There is no express benefit to America to locate new oil resources unless it intends to nationalize the industry.

  • Posted By: kgundi @ 04/07/2009 1:19:29 PM

    This article is right, but doesn't discuss why that means the current administration is wrong. We need to utilize all resources that we have in gaining energy indpendence, not a few hand-picked by special interest groups.

  • Posted By: svanduzen @ 04/07/2009 1:04:45 PM

    I agree with using nuclear power, and our power prices here in Georgia have been increased to pay for additional nuclear plants for more power. One problem, however, is that the nuclear plants and coal plants use a tremendous amount of water for cooling - Water is the white elephant in the room which most people are ignoring. As a matter of fact, the State Climatologists in GA have declared the drought in our region over. With this in mind, the only drinking water supply for Atlanta and the surrounding area is 9 feet below where it should be. If the drought is over, then I suggest we stop fighting over the river water running along the FL / GA border. Once again, the implementation of a water based sustainability solution can help the nuclear plants and coal plants run more efficiently and take a lesser toll on the environment and the ability of the region to grow due to lack of water. Actually, we are currently working on a project at a de-salination plant, where rainwater is added to the water supply. Considering that for every inch of rain per 10,000 square feet on a building, a harvesting system will yield 5,000 gallons of usable water, this is pretty successful.

  • Posted By: Geophysicist @ 04/06/2009 9:48:33 PM

    It's ironic that the author doesn't consider nuclear power. After all, of all the proven existing energy supplies we use it has the fewest technological and environmental issues with waste. The vast majority of issues surrounding Yucca Mtn. are political; not technical. If you don't believe me ask a nuclear scientist. Oh, that's right, I am one. But you don't have to take my word for it. Check it out yourself. Log onto the International Atomic Energy Agency Website at IAEA.org and educate yourself. The fear mongering of environmentalist has stiffled this incredible industry long enough.

    • Posted By: dajerk13 @ 04/07/2009 12:41:52 PM

      so are you a nuclear scientist or a geophysicist, as your user name and previous post implies? i'm sure you realize that they are two completely different disciplines.

    • Posted By: dajerk13 @ 04/07/2009 12:39:21 PM

      so are you a nuclear scientist or a geophysicist, as your screenname and previous post implies?

    • Posted By: dajerk13 @ 04/07/2009 12:38:43 PM

      so are you a nuclear scientist or a geophysicist, as your screenname and previous post implies?

  • Posted By: svanduzen @ 04/07/2009 12:35:39 PM

    Energy savings is a priority which has been greatly overlooked in the USA. It is also greatly misunderstood. Most people think that energy saving technologies are expensive, however, they are not. If executed correctly, a properly designed plan can have a return on investment within about 1 to 2 years. Most people and businesses focus on a single tier approach, like solar. RainTrapper Environmental goes about it in a different way, using water to create a water based sustainability plan for buildings and companies. Through the use of water, the cooling costs for buildings can be reduced by up to 40%, (this is the largest consumer of power in buildings, and buildings create more greenhouse gasses than cars). So, if you were to install a solar system, and use water to keep them running at optimal temperatures where they are the most efficient at converting solar energy into power, the efficiency of the solar PV cells could be increased by up to 15%. By using water, the return on investment on the solar system is lowered, making it more attractive than a solar system alone. Through the implementation of a water based sustainability solution, buildings can lay the groundwork for financial and environmental sustainability, qualify for new and additional LEED credits, supplement current sources, and make the buildings much more efficient. While we are in a tough economic situation, there are also tools such as performance contracts which can help pay for the systems out of the savings generated, resulting in immediate savings on cash flow. Bottom line is that energy prices and water prices will continue to rise at faster rates, (they have never gone down, by the way), and through the use of RainTrapper Environmental products, engineering and performance contracts, sustainability is affordable, economical, and easy to start implementing.

  • Posted By: xmissile @ 04/07/2009 12:33:22 PM

    We can't achieve these goals while stonewalling projects like Cape Wind and all other planned coastal wind farms. When Int Sec. Salazar announced a pushback (TBA) on any final decision, I must say that I was totally flabbergasted. All this talk of change and green energy...stymied at the behest of one Sen. Ted Kennedy. If by some miracle an Obama staffer is reading this, tell him that wrt environmental policy I have yet to see a change I can believe in.

  • Posted By: ichthus @ 04/07/2009 11:20:03 AM

    The goal of energy independence is certainly achievable but not thru alternative energy experiments and symbolic conservation measures. What we need is a realistic National Energy Policy that includes all of the following:

    1) Additional oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and every other oil rich spot in the US as a national priority to reduce fuel costs and achieve energy independence.

    2) Increase refinery capacity. Cut regulatory bureaucracy and offer tax incentives (or penalties) to encourage/ensure refinery capacity increase.

    3) Aggressively moving forward with plans to adopt Nuclear Power as our primary source of energy for the future. (Even if we someday move to a ???hydrogen economy??? that would require plentiful, inexpensive electrical power to produce H2 from water).

    4) Stop subsidies of Ethanol. If this fuel has any merit, let it stand on its own. So far it takes nearly a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of Ethanol ??? a far inferior fuel to gasoline. Ethanol is not the key to energy independence or reduced emissions.

    5) Realistically consider Alternative Energy as little more than interesting experiments. Wind power, solar panels, geothermal, biomass, wave power all have major impediments to widespread use and will only become ???supplements??? to fossil fuel ??? not the enablers of energy independence.

    6) Eliminate all legislation, regulations, and carbon credit trading schemes based on concerns of ???Man-made Global Warming???. Even if true, there is nothing our country could do to control it. If the US were to eliminate ALL automotive emissions today, the accelerating use of fossil fuels in emerging economies (China, India) for power plants and transportation would still continue to increase global CO2 emissions.

    The goal of US energy independence is valid. However, it is pure folly to expect to achieve that goal without aggressive and realistic policies that fully utilize our own natural resources, expands nuclear power, and eliminates crippling legislation and regulatory burdens.

    • Posted By: David2625 @ 04/07/2009 12:00:18 PM

      All of the items you listed we are already doing. So your plan of action it doing the same but expecting a different result? It is obvious that you don't care about anything other than how it affects you. Your motto is destroy everything as long as your gas and energy are cheap. I don???t understand people like you. You are probably the same person who criticize the spending that is happening now and telling people we are destroying our future by putting our children in debt. I would rather put our country in debt vs. putting our planet in peril. At least my we can reverse the debt.

    • Posted By: David2625 @ 04/07/2009 11:59:45 AM

      All of the items you listed we are already doing. So your plan of action it doing the same but expecting a different result? It is obvious that you don't care about anything other than how it affects you. Your motto is destroy everything as long as your gas and energy are cheap. I don???t understand people like you. You are probably the same person who criticize the spending that is happening now and telling people we are destroying our future by putting our children in debt. I would rather put our country in debt vs. putting our planet in peril. At least my we can reverse the debt.

    • Posted By: prohb @ 04/07/2009 11:36:40 AM

      Complete and utter nonsense. You have blinders on and only see date in one direction.....which is
      let's use up the resources as fast as we can, and to ____ with our children's future and the environment.

  • Posted By: svanduzen @ 04/07/2009 11:18:58 AM

    Sustainability is a key issue facing all of us. It is the companies and business owners who have the greatest opportunities to benefit from embracing sustainable measures. RainTrapper Environmental Solutions, is a company that offers water based sustainability solutions for corporate and industrial clients. Through the use of water, power bills can be reduced, the cost to cool buildings can be reduced by up to 40%, and sustainable practices can be implemented with rates of return of between one and two years! It is possible to have an environmentally friendly power saving program that pays for itself in a year or two, and saves even more money and more value as the prices of energy go up. Its being done in Europe, Australia, South America, Canada, and the Middle East - Just not here yet. I offer an invitation to check out our company, let us show you what can be done - the results and delivered performance is astounding.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse