Response #12 to "Strickland: $40M investment for alternative energy"

This article is significant because it shows that the state government of Ohio is seriously interested in developing its alternative energy sector. This is important for three reasons. The first being that if the state of Ohio invests in developing its alternative energy it will positively affect the climate. The second is that it will boosts Ohio's economy, maybe encouraging more investing into alternative energy. The third is the most significant. I look at the states that make up the US as having a sort of rivalry apparent in many things, especially evident in sports, so if one state starts to leave another behind in some regard including technologically or economically, I believe that will be a very strong reason for other states to invest in their own alternative energy sectors. And a country-wide investment into alternative is part of what is needed to stop or slow carbon emissions coming from our country. The world has shown it does not want a universal agreement on carbon emission reductions, so our country must become an example.

Notes on "Strickland: $40M investment for alternative energy"

The governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, has stated the state will invest 40 million into alternative energy programs.

The point of this investment is to "further Ohio's green technology development."

In addition to the 40 million, there are other more modest programs that are being created to aid job creation and business growth.

The 40 million would be allocated to solar, wind and fuel cell development.

A quote of Ted Strickland's, "There will come a day when Ohio will be the undisputed home of advanced energy. A day when we cast off those two tired words that have been used to put us down: 'Rust Belt;' Because that's not who we are."

Strickland also supports a tax decrease for energy generation.

There was recently a new partnership between the Ohioan universities and Proctor & Gamble that is based on getting the products developed by the universities out faster to the market.

Response #11 to "Forum on State Money for Alternative Energy Draws More Than 100 to HACC"

This article is significant because of what it symbolizes. Around America, people and local governments and business are beginning to delve into the large amounts of money set aside by the stimulus package for alternative energy. Everyday people are finally realizing how important alternative energy is to both America's economy and the worlds climate. As I mentioned in a previous post, when there is money to be made, people will pay attention, and because there is now support pouring in from the government I think people will feel safer about investing into the alternative energy sector. This forum shows that local communities are beginning to become interested in the prospects that alternative energy offers. This kind of community driven effort to get alternative energy more widespread is exactly what is needed for the world to tackle the problem of climate change.

Notes on "Forum on State Money for Alternative Energy Draws More Than 100 to HACC"

More than 100 people showed up for a forum on how Pennsylvanians, from small business owners to local governments, can draw a from a large pool of money the state has set aside for alternative energy ventures.

Both grants and loans are available to people who apply.

The money will go to people who want to install geothermal and solar, create and upgrade buildings to be more conservative and efficient with energy.

The CFA which handles part of the stimulus package which was sent to Pennsylvania supports increasing reliance on alternative energies.

The Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority has around 100 million dollars available for rebates if money is invested into alternative energy.

The audience of the forum consisted of contractors, installers, architects, engineers, developers, and local government members.

Response #10 to "Making Mars the New Earth."

When I chose this article, I chose it for two specific reasons. One, I enjoy reading about ideas like this, to me its very interesting. The other reason is that terraforming a planet like Mars using the same methods that is causing irreparable damage to our own planet could teach us things in the long run. oh, and also overpopulation? Solved by a terraformed Mars. NASA is out of the picture however. It simply doesn't have the funds. A global initiative would be needed in order to make this idea a reality. And while this blog post isn't strictly about alternative energy, it is very important in its own regard in that it is about the effects of climate change. If there is a possibility that Mars could be transformed from a barren planet to a green one, think about how our green planet could be transformed to a blue one.

Notes on "Making Mars the New Earth."

The human race is capable of terraforming Mars.
This would be done the exact same way Earth is being warmed up: carbon emissions.
Mars right now is incredibly cold, with an average temperature -76 degrees F.
There would be multiple steps to the process of terraforming Mars.
1. Small missions add habitation modules to Mars surface.
2. An atmosphere would be created by pumping greenhouse gases into Mars, and later the carbon dioxide frozen on the poles of Mars would melt, releasing even more and heating the planet faster.
3. Rain would begin falling, and algae and lichen would begin to flourish.
4. Flowering plants could be introduced after organic soil was created.
5. 300 years later, Mars would be inhabitable. Overall this is roughly over a period of 1,000 years.
Human colonists could seed the red rock with multiple ecosystems, for instance start with bacteria and lichens and then after 1,000 years it might be able to support redwoods.
NASA does not have the funds to undertake this venture.
Mars has lower gravity, lower temperatures, and is significantly smaller.

Response #9 to "Experimental Power Plant Takes the CO2 Out"

This article is significant because coal is where the majority of the United States' electricity is acquired. 51 percent of our countries electricity is crested from coal powered plants, and about 60 percent of all of our countries carbon emissions are from the coal power plants. If we switched completely from coal as our major source of power then we could dramatically decrease our countries carbon footprint, but that's not realistic. Instead, we can reduce the effect that the existing plants have on the environment. At this point, the technology is not proven, so we should not rely solely on it. I still believe wind and solar are the way of the future. This technology however, is a step in the right direction.

Notes on "Experimental Power Plant Takes the CO2 Out."

Coal is one of the leading sources of carbon emissions in the United States.
Coal currently generates about 51 percent of the United States electricity.
The Obama Administration has shown support for the power plant that will be using "FutureGen" which is a technology in which roughly 60 percent of the carbon emissions from the production of coal is put deep underground.
FutureGen is scheduled to be up and running by 2014.
The CO2 gases are siphoned until they're nearly a liquid and pumped deep into sandstone where the gas will be trapped and not go up into the atmosphere.
FutureGen has been criticized by both the right and the left.
Left: Believe America should lessen its dependence on coal technology instead of just making it less harmful to the environment.
Right: Disapprove of spending money on an unproven technology.
Some ways to stash carbon:
1. Capture it at the source.
2. Grab it with artificial trees.
3. Bury it under the sea.
4. Turn it into charcoal.
5. Turn it into rock.