Variable wind causes power grid problems

Wind power is interesting because it is available even when solar collectors aren't working, but wind tends to be highly variable. Our electrical grid is designed around power plants that are slow to change the amount of energy they provide. For best effectiveness, wind power ought to be stored on site (in batteries or capacitors?) and delivered to the grid in a predictable manner - however, that adds to the cost and isn't being done at this time (except in Japan).

Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency U.S. Reuters:
"HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.

The grid operator went directly to the second stage of an emergency plan at 6:41 PM CST (0041 GMT), ERCOT said in a statement.

System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave 1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers are generally large industrial customers who are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur.

No other customers lost power during the emergency, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers were restored in about 90 minutes and the emergency was over in three hours."

Surge in wind power causes spike in NW power grid Local News kgw.com News for Oregon and SW Washington:
"PORTLAND, Ore. -- The wind huffed, and it puffed, and it nearly caused major problems in the Northwest's electrical grid last week.

Power managers say they have some fixing to do.

A surge of wind last Monday afternoon jumped far beyond levels forecast by operators of Oregon's burgeoning wind-farm industry, sending more power into the regional grid than it could handle.

The Bonneville Power Administration is responsible for adjusting hydropower generation levels to accommodate the power from wind turbines so the system isn't overloaded.
It realized by Monday evening that it could no longer handle the surge without increasing spills of water through hydroelectric dams to levels dangerous to fish. Spilling the water keeps it from the hydropower generators.
. . .
So, for the first time, BPA power managers began calling wind-farm operators with orders to curtail power generation.

But calls to some wind farms reached only answering machines, and at another the operators misunderstood and kept generation steady. One wind-farm, which BPA wouldn't name, did reduce generation.

As it turned out, water the BPA had to spill wasn't heavy enough to do damage.

But a BPA official said it demonstrated a need to make sure that the growth of wind power in the Columbia Basin doesn't cause more such problems."

Oregon power council releases wind energy plan Daily Journal of Commerce (Portland, OR) Find Articles at BNET:
"Electrical utilities may have a lot of power, but they can't force the wind to blow.

And as Northwest states increasingly develop wind power projects and pass mandates for renewable resources, regional power suppliers must determine how to provide constant electricity from wind turbines at a minimal cost to customers.

'Wind is an intermittent resource and tends not to blow on the hottest and coldest days, which tend to be the days of peak load,' Steve Wright, administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration, said. 'Fundamentally the question here is, 'How do you make wind resources work in a system in which consumers demand high reliability?''

A new wind integration plan, released yesterday by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, has taken the first step in solving the region's wind power problems.

The plan does not, however, evaluate the consequences of implementing Oregon's proposed renewable portfolio standard (RPS), under review by the Oregon Senate, which would require utilities to obtain 25 percent of their new energy production from renewable resources by 2025.
. . .
Spreading wind farms throughout different geographic regions, building additional transmission lines, and coordinating transmission scheduling and new resource development among regional electrical utilities will be the key steps to integrating additional wind resources, according to the plan.

Because electricity cannot be stored and must be used when it is produced, the plan also calls for a number of backup measures to offset periods when the wind isn't blowing.

The region's hydropower system currently acts as a fallback for wind projects already up and running. Power can be "stored" by retaining water behind dams along the Columbia River while the wind is blowing, and released to spin the hydro facilities' turbines on still days.

But the hydro system is nearing its production capacity due to increased regional demand for power and tougher fish and wildlife regulations that limit power production in an effort to better protect the river's wild salmon.

The plan "is timely- We've got a hydro system that is increasingly being constrained," Tim Culbertson, general manager of the Grant County public utility district, said. "Planning for it now is going to give us many better options on how to plan for that as a resource that can be counted on in the region.""

Japan's wind-power problem [National Wind Watch]:
". . .
Wind farms make their money by selling energy contracts to electric companies. When the regional utilities don’t agree to buy the full amount of the electricity they generate, developers are left in a bind.

But utilities don’t view wind as the perfect power. After all, the electricity that wind-power projects supply fluctuates depending on the wind’s strength, setting up a risk for power surges and outages. To neutralize this problem, utility companies have asked developers to store the energy created from wind power in batteries that can be tapped when needed, rather than to channel the energy directly to the grid.

In an effort to appease utilities, wind developers have begun to do just that. Japan Wind Development Co. and battery maker NGK Insulators have partnered to install battery accumulators at a wind-power site in the Aomori Prefecture this year (see Batteries for the Grid). NGK’s sodium-sulfur batteries store energy created when the wind blows and dispatch the smooth energy to the grid during peak demand periods.

Still, batteries are not ready for wide-scale adoption, mainly because of their price. They can double the cost of a project, and it is unlikely project developers will be able to pass these costs to the utilities.

Off-shore wind developments are another attractive, and possibly less costly, option.

It is both more powerful and more predictable than land-based wind power, two factors that may help allay utility concerns about power surges and capacity, and also can be located closer to main city centers, where the electricity is used. Most wind farms in Japan today are located in the far north or south, where land is cheaper and less inhabited, and none are near Tokyo.

European countries have been looking to the sea for years. Japan too has experimented. Two turbines have been in operation in the northern island of Hokkaido – less than 1 kilometer off the coast – since 2003, and the University of Tokyo and Tokyo Electric are investigating the possibility of an off-shore wind farm near Tokyo.

But Japan’s geography complicates such projects. The country is surrounded by deep water, and deep-water wind-farm technology is still in its infancy. Last year, Scotland installed two 87-meter-high wind turbines 25 kilometers off its coast. The installation is the biggest project of its kind in the world and still in the trial stages.

Mr. Iida said similar plans for Japan may be years off if they happen at all. Aside from the expense (off-shore wind farms can cost two to three times onshore projects), it must contend with opposition from the politically powerful fishing industry"

A Problem With Wind Power [AWEO.org]:
"In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has 'serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs.'

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary 'greenhouse' gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.

A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, 'Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?,' July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures.
. . .
The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power's contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA's figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially.

In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.
. . .
Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.
. . .
In the U.K. (population 60 million), 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002, according to the Department of Trade and Industry. The government hopes to increase the use of renewables to 10.4% by 2010 and 20.4% by 2020, requiring many tens of thousands more towers. As demand will have grown, however, even more turbines will be required. In California (population 35 million), according to the state energy commission, 14,000 turbines (about 1,800 MW capacity) produced half of one percent of their electricity in 2000. Extrapolating this record to the U.S. as a whole, and without accounting for an increase in energy demand, well over 100,000 1.5-MW wind towers (costing $150-300 billion) would be necessary to meet the DOE's goal of a mere 5% of the country's electricity from wind by 2010."

WhiteKnightTwo Space Plane - Getting Ready for Space Tourism

Hopefully this is the start of real commercialization of space. Only when companies are making profits in space will we generate the infrastructure required for humans to eventually live off-planet full-time. Commercial satellites haven't created this yet because it is cheaper to throw them up and let them fall when they're no longer of use - people need a bit more coddling than that.

Virgin Galactic Unveils WhiteKnightTwo Space Plane:
"The Virgin Galactic company today unveiled the WhiteKnightTwo, a new class of carrier airplane that will help loft space tourists beyond Earth's atmosphere.

The first plane in the WhiteKnightTwo class was christened EVE in honor of Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson's mother, who performed the official naming ceremony this morning at the Mojave Air and Spaceport in California.
. . .
WhiteKnightTwo will ferry the not-yet-unveiled SpaceShipTwo crafts, six-passenger versions of the original SpaceShipOne, up to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters) above Earth.

The passenger ship is then launched from the underside of WhiteKnightTwo to continue its ascent to the very edge of space—about 65 miles (104 kilometers) above Earth—under its own power. SpaceShipTwo crafts make the return trip to Earth unaided."

Scaled Composites White Knight Two - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"The Scaled Composites Model 348 White Knight Two (WK2) is a jet-powered carrier aircraft which will be used to launch the SpaceShipTwo spacecraft. It was developed by Scaled Composites as the first stage of Tier 1b, a two-stage to suborbital-space manned launch system. WK2 is based on the successful mothership to SpaceShipOne,White Knight, which itself is based on Proteus.

Virgin Galactic has two WK2's on order.[1] Together WK2 and SS2 form the basis for Virgin Galactic's fleet of suborbital spaceplanes. The first two WK2s will be named after Steve Fossett (Spirit of Steve Fossett)[2], a close friend of Richard Branson, and Richard's mother Eve (Eve)[3]."

They've slipped the estimated roll out date based on the September 2006 article below, but compared to other historic projects, they're not doing badly.

SPACE.com -- Virgin Galactic Unveils SpaceShipTwo Interior Concept:
"NEW YORK - Future passengers aboard Virgin Galactic spaceliners can look forward to cushioned reclining seats and lots of windows during suborbital flights aboard SpaceShipTwo, a concept interior of which was unveiled by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson Thursday.

'It won't be much different than this,' Branson told reporters here at Wired Magazine's NextFest forum. 'It's strange to think that in 12 months we'll be unveiling the actual plane, and then test flights will commence right after that.'
. . .
The air-launched SpaceShipTwo is designed to seat eight people - six passengers and two pilots - and be hauled into launch position by WhiteKnightTwo, a massive carrier craft currently under construction by Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic president Will Whitehorn said.

For an initial ticket price of $200,000, Virgin Galactic passengers will buy a 2.5-hour flight aboard SpaceShipTwo and launch from an altitude of about 60,000 feet (18,288 meters), while buckled safely in seats that recline flat after reaching suborbital space. A flight animation depicted passengers clad in their own personal spacesuits as they reached a maximum altitude of at least 68 miles (110 kilometers).

While the spacesuit designs are not yet final, they will likely be equipped with personal data and image recorders to add to SpaceShipTwo's in-cabin cameras, Whitehorn said.

"If it was ready next week, I'd be there," Alan Watts, who has traded in two million Virgin Atlantic frequent flyer miles for a ride on SpaceShipTwo, told SPACE.com. "I'm really looking forward to it.""

Solar Power Satellites go Mainstream

With the NY Times endorsing the idea, perhaps now this decades old idea will get some funding - we can hope.

Op-Ed Contributor - Satellites With Solar Panels Can Beam the Sun’s Energy to Earth. - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com:
"As we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative energy sources — coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based solar — are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is, however, one potential future energy source that is environmentally friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.

Science fiction? Actually, no — the technology already exists. A space solar power system would involve building large solar energy collectors in orbit around the Earth. These panels would collect far more energy than land-based units, which are hampered by weather, low angles of the sun in northern climes and, of course, the darkness of night.

Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to Earth via wireless radio transmission, where it would be received by antennas near cities and other places where large amounts of power are used. The received energy would then be converted to electric power for distribution over the existing grid. Government scientists have projected that the cost of electric power generation from such a system could be as low as 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is within the range of what consumers pay now.
. . .
In terms of cost effectiveness, the two stumbling blocks for space solar power have been the expense of launching the collectors and the efficiency of their solar cells. Fortunately, the recent development of thinner, lighter and much higher efficiency solar cells promises to make sending them into space less expensive and return of energy much greater.

Much of the progress has come in the private sector. Companies like Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences, working in conjunction with NASA’s public-private Commercial Orbital Transportation Services initiative, have been developing the capacity for very low cost launchings to the International Space Station. This same technology could be adapted to sending up a solar power satellite system.

Still, because building the first operational space solar power system will be very costly, a practical first step would be to conduct a test using the International Space Station as a “construction shack” to house the astronauts and equipment. The station’s existing solar panels could be used for the demonstration project, and its robotic manipulator arms could assemble the large transmitting antenna. While the station’s location in orbit would permit only intermittent transmission of power back to Earth, a successful test would serve as what scientists call “proof of concept.”

Over the past 15 years, Americans have invested more than $100 billion, directly and indirectly, on the space station and supporting shuttle flights. With an energy crisis deepening, it’s time to begin to develop a huge return on that investment. (And for those who worry that science would lose out to economics, there’s no reason that work on space solar power couldn’t go hand in hand with work toward a manned mission to Mars, advanced propulsion systems and other priorities of the space station.)"

And of course, once we have huge arrays in space, we can position them to block sunlight if we're getting to warm (global warming), or reflect more sunlight onto Earth if we're getting a bit chilly (a new ice-age).

Google's Wikipedia Copy with Attribution

Given time, citations to Knol may be more acceptable to college professors than Wikipedia. Competition is usually good for any product, so perhaps both will be improved over time.

Google Offers Knol, a Wikipedia Copy with Attribution - Yahoo! News:
"On Wednesday Google took the lid off a new product called Knol. The search-engine giant first announced it was testing the product in December. Knols are authoritative articles about specific topics, written by people who know about those subjects.
. . .
"With Knol, we are introducing a new method for authors to work together that we call moderated collaboration," Dupont and McNally wrote. "With this feature, any reader can make suggested edits to a knol which the author may then choose to accept, reject or modify before these contributions become visible to the public. This allows authors to accept suggestions from everyone in the world while remaining in control of their content. After all, their name is associated with it!"

Knol includes community tools for interaction between readers and authors. People can submit comments, rate or write a review of a knol. At the discretion of the author, a knol may include ads from Google's AdSense program. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the author with a revenue share.
. . .
Experts can access the new site at knol.google.com."

One creature's waste is another's power.

This is more cost effective at bigger operations than small family farms. As it should also reduce the noxious odors, I would almost favor legislating this process for pig farms.

Cow power could generate electricity for millions:
"The journal paper, 'Cow Power: The Energy and Emissions Benefits of Converting Manure to Biogas', has implications for all countries with livestock as it is the first attempt to outline a procedure for quantifying the national amount of renewable energy that herds of cattle and other livestock can generate and the concomitant GHG emission reductions.

Livestock manure, left to decompose naturally, emits two particularly potent GHGs – nitrous oxide and methane. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nitrous oxide warms the atmosphere 310 times more than carbon dioxide, methane does so 21 times more.

The journal paper creates two hypothetical scenarios and quantifies them to compare energy savings and GHG reducing benefits. The first is 'business as usual' with coal burnt for energy and with manure left to decompose naturally. The second is one wherein manure is anaerobically-digested to create biogas and then burnt to offset coal.

Through anaerobic digestion, similar to the process by which you create compost, manure can be turned into energy-rich biogas, which standard microturbines can use to produce electricity. The hundreds of millions of livestock inhabiting the US could produce approximately 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power millions of homes and offices.

And, as manure left to decompose naturally has a very damaging effect on the environment, this new waste management system has a net potential GHG emissions reduction of 99 million metric tonnes, wiping out approximately four per cent of the country's GHG emissions from electricity production.

The burning of biogas would lead to the emission of some CO2 but the output from biogas-burning plants would be less than that from, for example, coal."

Dumping dirt in the ocean to lower CO2 levels

Assuming we need to reduce CO2, this is an interesting and relatively safe way to do it. I do wonder what useful work people could be doing instead, but it could be an interesting experiment.

A dash of lime -- a new twist that may cut CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels:
"Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, reports Cath O'Driscoll in SCI's Chemistry & Industry magazine published today.

Shell is so impressed with the new approach that it is funding an investigation into its economic feasibility. 'We think it's a promising idea,' says Shell's Gilles Bertherin, a coordinator on the project. 'There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change – and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.'

Adding lime to seawater increases alkalinity, boosting seawater's ability to absorb CO2 from air and reducing the tendency to release it back again.
. . .
The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.

'This process has the potential to reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be possible to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels,' Kruger says.
. . .
The oceans are already the world's largest carbon sink, absorbing 2bn tonnes of carbon every year. Increasing absorption ability by just a few percent could dramatically increase CO2 uptake from the atmosphere.

This project is being developed in an open source manner. To find out more, please go to http://www.cquestrate.com , a new website, launched today."

NASA eyes buying Japan's cargo spacecraft

I first saw this link in a criticism of outsourcing. Considering the dependence we have on the Russian space program, I don't have any complaints with giving some business to a good ally.

NASA has decreed that outdated Shuttle must be parked in 2010, whether we have a replacement available or not. I expect that as we get closer to that date, they will have a change of heart and keep at least 2 shuttles available for a reduced schedule of flights.

There are many problems at NASA, but we currently have no other alternatives in the important work of developing space. Congress should look at creating a regulatory and tax environment that makes private exploration & exploitation of space economically attractive.

NASA eyes buying Japan's cargo spacecraft: report - Yahoo! News:
"TOKYO (Reuters) - NASA has began unofficial negotiations with Japan's space agency on purchasing units of an unmanned cargo transfer spacecraft as the successor to its space shuttles, the Yomiuri newspaper said on Sunday.

Such a deal would be the biggest in Japan's 50-year space development history, the paper added.

The H-2 Transfer Vehicle (HTV), which costs about 14 billion yen ($131 million) each, is being developed by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and domestic companies including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd and Mitsubishi Electric Corp, the Yomiuri said.

Behind the move is NASA's concern that the retirement of its space shuttles in 2010 will make it difficult for the U.S. to fulfill its responsibilities to deliver water, food and materials for scientific experiments to the International Space Station, the paper said.

In April, NASA started a project to assist U.S. companies' development of a spacecraft to succeed the space shuttle, but it is uncertain whether the successor could be developed in the two years left before the retirement, and that prompted NASA to discuss buying foreign spacecraft, the paper said."

Brain Drain threatens Britain's Nuclear drive

Nuclear Power is a safe clean technology that can ease the energy crisis while providing high paying new jobs for the construction & operation of reactors. Unfortunately, much of the world has spent the past few decades demonizing nuclear power - this is one the results:

Skills shortage threatens Britain's nuclear drive - Times Online:
"Britain’s main nuclear safety regulator is struggling to halt a staff exodus that threatens to delay construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations.

A brain drain of senior inspectors and engineers has left the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) so seriously understaffed that only 16 people are overseeing a highly complex approval process for new nuclear reactors that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says requires at least 40 people.

. . . skilled nuclear engineers are already a rarity in the UK and the nuclear industry’s renaissance is compounding the NII’s problem by triggering departures of staff to private sector companies.
. . .
A lack of skills is viewed as one of the biggest challenges facing Britain’s nuclear industry. Only one nuclear power station, Sizewell B, has been built in Britain since the 1970s. Many universities closed their nuclear engineering departments decades ago on cost grounds and because there was so little interest in the speciality.

Although the Treasury has awarded only limited extra funding for the NII, the agency’s problems are viewed within government as a key concern."

Traffic deaths fall as gas prices climb

Note that changing the speed limit didn't bring this about. Car & Driver magazine has repeatedly published information from studies consistently showing traffic congestion as the problem, not speed. Another way to reduce congestion on a piece of roadway is to increase the speed limit - so people get off the road sooner.

AP IMPACT: Traffic deaths fall as gas prices climb - Yahoo! News:
"COLUMBUS, Ohio - Rising prices at the gas pump appear to be having at least one positive effect: Traffic deaths around the country are plummeting, just as they did during the Arab oil embargo three decades ago.
. . .
No one can say definitively why road fatalities are falling, but it is happening as Americans cut back sharply on driving because of record-high gas prices.

Fewer people on the road means fewer fatalities, said Gus Williams, 52, of Albany, Ga., who frequently drives to northern Ohio. "That shows a good thing coming out of this crisis." He has also noticed that many motorists are going slower.

The federal government reported in April that miles traveled fell 1.8 percent in April compared with a year earlier, continuing a trend that began in November.

Experts say a slumping economy and fuel prices have brought down the number of road fatalities in a hurry.

"When the economy is in the tank and fuel prices are high, you typically see a decline in miles driven and traffic deaths," said John Ulczycki, the council's executive director for transportation safety.
. . .
Even considering new safety measures by states, it is now clear that, just like in the early 1970s, motorists are cutting discretionary travel and reducing the kind of late-night outings for alcohol that often lead to deadly accidents, Hurley said.
. . .
Fatality rates have remained relatively flat over the last 15 years or so, totaling 42,642 in 2006, the last year for which complete figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are available.

Regulators say a better gauge of road fatalities is the number per 100 million miles traveled, a rate that has been declining even as Americans drive more. In 2006, that figure fell to its lowest level: 1.42 deaths.

Yet the drop-off this year is even greater and appears to be accelerating."

Ice On Mars Means We Can Live There.

As these preliminary experiments are proving, there is plenty of frozen water (ice) and frozen carbon dioxide (dry-ice) on Mars. Once we setup greenhouses, we'll be able to grow plants to eat and produce oxygen. If we need more oxygen, we can make it from the water or the carbon dioxide. Children in college today will quite likely have the opportunity to see their children (or grandchildren) leave Earth for careers on Mars. Their grandchildren may be able to sit around campfires singing songs on Mars. This is a good thing.

Mars Lander Exposes More Ice - Yahoo! News: "NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander used its robotic arm to expose more of the hard icy layer just below the Martian surface so that it can more easily gather a sample of the material for analysis.

The trench, informally called 'Snow White,' was about 8 by 12 inches (20 by 30 centimeters) after digging by the arm Saturday. Mission controllers sent commands to the spacecraft Monday to further extend the length of the trench by about 6 inches (15 centimeters).
Scientists said tests in a lab on Earth suggested more area must be exposed in order to collect a proper sample."

Here is some discussion of how we might make Mars suitable for sustained human occupation:

HowStuffWorks "How Terraforming Mars Will Work": "NASA probes have discovered hints to a warmer past on Mars, one in which water may have flowed and life might have existed. With fluvial evidence mounting that water may still exist in a frozen state on Mars, there are many who suggest that the human race could one day make Mars its second home. Such an effort to colonize Mars would begin with altering the current climate and atmosphere to more closely resemble that of Earth's. The process of transforming the Martian atmosphere to create a more habitable living environment is called terraforming."

In order to survive, Humanity will eventually need to leave Earth:

Terraforming of Mars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "In the not-too distant future, population growth and demand for resources may create pressure for humans to colonize new habitats such as the surface of the Earth's oceans, the sea floor, near-Earth orbital space, the moon and nearby planets, as well as mine the solar system for energy and materials .[1] Thinking far into the future (in the order of hundreds of millions of years), some scientists point out that the Sun will eventually grow too hot for Earth to sustain life, even before it becomes a red giant star, because all main sequence stars brighten slowly throughout their lifetimes. When this happens, it will become imperative for humans to migrate away to areas farther from the sun if they have any hope of surviving. Through terraforming, humans could make Mars habitable long before this 'deadline'. Mars could then be in the habitable zone for a while, giving humanity some thousand additional years to develop further space technology to settle on the outer rim of the solar system, before Mars becomes uninhabitable due to the sun's increasing heat."

No WMDs? - US removes uranium from Iraq

We may never know what Saddam shipped out of Iraq during the months we prepared to invade. At least this nuclear product wasn't on the trucks, boats, & planes leaving Iraq.

My Way News - AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq:
"The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of 'yellowcake' - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad - using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
. . .
Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger - and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims - led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site - surrounded by huge sand berms - following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.
. . .
The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.

Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.

The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites."

Our Government in Action

To say that this is a stupid waste of money is to state the obvious. Any program like this if enacted would bankrupt the airlines as potential passengers find other ways to get to their destinations. Congress would be deluged with more protest mail, phone calls, e-mails, and Faxes than they received during debate over the McCain Kennedy Amnesty Bill. If enacted, look for civil disobedience to rise to all-time highs as people destroy their bracelets, stop paying taxes, and start defacing airport property. More subtle people would come up with more subtle forms of protest - remember the advice to always give the government computers more information than they need, and to make sure some of it is wrong (a different something on each form)?

Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News - "Want some torture with your peanuts?" by Aviation Security:
"A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers.

This bracelet would:
• take the place of an airline boarding pass
• contain personal information about the traveler
• be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage
• shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

The Electronic ID Bracelet, as it’s referred to as, would be worn by every traveler “until they disembark the flight at their destination.”
. . .
So is the government really that interested in this bracelet? Yes!

According to a letter from DHS official, Paul S. Ruwaldt of the Science and Technology Directorate, office of Research and Development, to the inventor whom he had previously met with, he wrote, “To make it clear, we [the federal government] are interested in…the immobilizing security bracelet, and look forward to receiving a written proposal.” The letterhead, in case you were wondering, came from the DHS office at the William J. Hughes Technical Center at the Atlantic City International Airport, or the Federal Aviation Administration headquarters.

In another part of the letter, Mr. Ruwaldt confirmed, “It is conceivable to envision a use to improve air security, on passenger planes.”

Would every paying airline passenger flying on a commercial airplane be mandated to wear one of these devices? I cringe at the thought. Not only could it be used as a physical restraining device, but also as a method of interrogation, according to the same aforementioned letter from Mr. Ruwaldt.

Would you let them put one of those on your wrist? Would you allow the airline employees, which would be mandated by the government, to place such a bracelet on any member of your family?

Why are tax dollars being spent on something like this? Is this a police state or is it America?"

Buy an old car (without any computers), restore it, and enjoy travelling the USA - while it's still legal. If you're worried about the price of fuel, consider converting it to use propane.

Natural Weather Cycles & Global Cooling

Excerpts from a very long & detailed letter on Jerry Pournelle's site documenting the media's refusal to report on the probable Global Cooling cycle that evidence shows has already begun.

Global Cooling:
Flashback: Global Warming Erased? 2008 Global Temperatures Similar to 1940 – June 25, 2008 Excerpt: By Richard Courtney, DipPhil, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.) Excerpt: Richard S Courtney says that the temperature is similar to 1940. […] The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.”
. . .
"Does AP 'Science' writer Seth Borenstein not have access to the Internet?
Excerpt: The Associated Press: This summer may see first ice-free North Pole. Last August, the Northwest Passage was open to navigation for the first time in memory. Hey Seth -- would you PLEASE read this, and then stop making that embarrassing claim?!
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated in 1906, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1984, 1988, and 2000 (and probably in other years as well)."
. . .
Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels: Hansen Unhinged - Having the wrong opinions on climate science constitutes a crime against humanity?

Excerpt: Every climate scientist knows there’s been no — zero — net change in surface temperatures in the last ten years, as shown in the climate history of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unless you throw in a volcano (there hasn’t been a decent one in the last decade), none of Hansen’s valid 1988 models predict what’s actually happened. He simply predicted too much warming, especially for the last ten years. Why should we believe what he forecasts for the rest of the 21st century? Hansen’s 1988 predictions were flatly wrong about the extent of global warming. Yet on the 20th anniversary of his original testimony, Hansen said that people “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature” for spreading doubts about the promised global warming holocaust.
. . .
...Hansen keeps trying to sway presidential and congressional contests. And he wants to incarcerate any CEO (or scientist, probably) who casts doubt on his vision in public. The fact of the matter is: Hansen is out of control. NASA employees aren’t supposed to call for tax hikes, endorse candidates, or attack businessmen. Any other federal employee would be warned for doing so, and if he continued, fired (or worse). You have to hand it to him, though: he’s a single, scientific outlier, terrorizing the American people."