The daily observation from the Solar & Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) clearly highlights a potential global problem. In 2008, nearly every day of each of the first four months of the year has recorded an observation of sunspot activity that is equal to zero. In fact, there have been only two days in the last four months when there has been any sunspot activity at all and each small event disappeared very quickly.

The importance of sunspot inactivity is the continued confirmation that Sunspot Cycle 24 will be very weak or even delayed. The most recent solar minimum was in March of last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a predicted gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It has not yet happened. History would suggest that the longer the delay in cycle activity, the weaker this sunspot cycle will be.

Consider that the future implications of this lack of sunspot activity may be enormous. Sunspots can be historically correlated with temperature change on Earth. Weak sunspot activity correlates to colder temperatures on earth. In fact, low sunspot activity in the past has led to decades of extremely cold worldwide temperatures. Indeed, a lack of sunspot activity may already correlate to the global cooling of the planet seen in the last twelve months. Therefore, current sunspot inactivity may predict even more cooling of the Earth’s climate in the years to come.

Last year, a dramatic cooling of the planet was measured by all four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California). It is now estimated that the Earth cooled by about 0.7C in 2007 which is the fastest temperature change on record. However, even as the planet was experiencing a dramatic decrease in temperature, the dubious ramifications of the misguided policies of the proponents of global warming could already be seen.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the world’s poorest countries can expect the cost of imported food to rise by over fifty percent this year. The World Bank estimates that food prices have already risen by 83 percent in the last three years. Already, thirty seven countries face food crises and consequences like malnourishment, starvation, and civil unrest. Riots over the high price of food have recently broken out in Haiti, Egypt, Senegal and more than twenty other countries worldwide.

Biofuels are a major reason that the price of food continues to escalate throughout the world according to conclusions from several reports on the current global food crisis. “Globalization, climate change, and the mass production of biofuels are pushing up food prices worldwide, which could jeopardize the livelihoods of the world’s poorest”, according to a report by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Similar findings have also been reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. In addition, these reports estimate that a global temperature increase of more than three degrees Celsius due to global warming could lift food prices by an additional 40 percent.

As can be seen in the reports, all the current planning is based solely on a future assumption of global warming. These reports continue to ignore the current low sunspot activity of Solar Cycle 24 and its potential correlation to an immediate future of cooling temperatures on the climate of the Earth.

The unfortunate truth is that if the planet continues to cool in the years ahead there will be less total global agriculture and much higher food prices than in these forecasts. A lack of proper planning for global cooling will result in millions of people starving due to a lack of food or from cold-related diseases because the world will not be prepared for the colder climate solution.

Consider that the daily report of sunspot activity may well be a signal of a future climate that is much colder than the world currently anticipates. In fact, in the years ahead, the world may even experience the extreme global effect of a mini ice age. Then, the misguided conversion of crops to fuel to save the planet from global warming would truly be catastrophic.

Therefore, agricultural and climate planning should include all possible future climate scenarios, both warm and cold. Like treating a sick patient, proper diagnosis of a problem is the first action in facilitating a cure. Science involves experimentation, observation, and hypothesis. It should not be a dogmatic crusade that is closed to debate.

Today, it makes little sense to starve the planet in a attempt to save it in the future through the use of biofuels. Tomorrow, it makes even less sense to plan and prepare for global warming if our future reality may require an increased use of fur coats as protection from the increased cold. That is why accurately taking the temperature of global climate change is crucial to the lives of millions of people in the years and decades ahead.

The Detroit’s Big Three will meet again with President George W. Bush in Washington later this month to discuss the increased use of flexible and alternative fuels. No date has been announced but the White House spokesperson said that the administration stays in contact with the automakers.

The talk will cover the increase of use of flexible and alternative fuels as well as other issues related to the industry. “We look forward to working with them [automakers] to reduce gasoline usage,” said White House spokesman Alex Conant.

Colin McBean, the manager of Washington communications for DaimlerChrysler AG, said the talks likely will center on alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel such as ethanol and biodiesel-powered vehicles. He added, “There’s interest among the respective parties to discuss flexible fuel as well as alternative fuels.”

Last November, Bush met with General Motors Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally and DaimlerChrysler AG’s Chrysler Group CEO Tom LaSorda. The President promised a continued dialogue on trade, health care and other issues as well.

Bush, in his State of the Union address, proposed reducing gasoline use by 20 percent over the next ten years. Bush called for ramping up the production of alternative fuels such as ethanol made from new, non-corn feedstocks. The President also called on Congress to require the yearly use of 35 billion gallons of ethanol and other alternative fuels like biodiesel by 2017. The intent is to increase the current requirements five times.

Spokesmen for Ford and GM decline to comment whether a meeting between the president and the auto executives had been arranged. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, on the other hand, said another meeting is a good step, but she said Bush needs to allocate more money to alternative fuel and battery technology development. “We need to see a boldness coming from the president’s budget on alternative fuels,” she said.

Stabenow expects the executives and Bush to discuss increasing the number of filling stations that have ethanol and biofuels. While incentives have been successful in developing alternative fuels, the infrastructure is not in place yet to get them to consumers, she said.

In 2006, top executives of GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler said that by 2010 they would double their production of flexible fuel vehicles, which can run on blends of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. They intend to build two million of these vehicles a year by 2010.

However, the goal could be derailed due to lack of fueling stations that carry the ethanol blends. Fewer than one percent of the nation’s 170,000 gas stations offer E85, and most are found in the Midwest. Another dilatory situation is requirement of meticulous study about alternative and flexible fuels. It needs further study about engines, Fram filters, radiators, brakes, and other crucial auto parts.

It’s been 40 years since Mr. McGuire pulled Benjamin Braddock aside at his graduation party and said, “I just want to say one word to you. Just one word … Are you listening? … Plastics. There’s a great future in plastics.”

The future is still in plastics, but today Mr. McGuire would probably whisper, “bioplastics.” Based on increases in the price of crude oil, from which most plastics are derived, and consumer interest in just about anything “green,” the timing is ideal for a surge in this next generation of plastics. The European Bioplastics trade group predicted annual capacity would more than triple to 1.5 million tons by 2011. BCC Research forecasts the global market for biodegradable polymers to grow at a compound average growth rate of more than 17 percent through 2012. Even so, bioplastics will encompass a small niche of the overall plastic market, which is forecast to reach 500 billion pounds globally by 2010.

The Case for Bioplastics

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, only 6 percent of the plastic made in the United States was recycled in 2005. (That compares to a 50 percent recycling rate for paper, 37 percent for metals, and 22 percent for glass.) The plastic that lands in landfills has a life measured in thousands of years. Because most bioplastics are produced from agriculturally based renewable resources, under the right conditions they are biodegradable and compostable. The environment-friendly aspect of bio-based plastics appeals to companies looking for non-toxic containers that do not leach questionable chemicals, and that return to nature harmlessly after being disposed.

In addition, U.S. consumers get over 100 billion polyethylene carrier bags each year, but only 1.2 percent are recycled. Reusablebags.com estimates up to 1 trillion plastic bags are given out to consumers worldwide. It may be less expensive for retailers to hand out a paper or a polyethylene bag, but the environmental cost of bioplastic bags is less in terms of disposal. Consumers like the lightweight plastic bags and tend to find other uses for them before eventually throwing them away. Very few people bring them back to the store, which explains the miniscule recycling rate. Replacing polyethylene bags with bioplastic would be environmentally safer.

Banned in San Francisco-and Even in China

In San Francisco, petroleum-based bags are banned from supermarkets and drug stores. Other communities both in the U.S. and internationally have taken note and are either initiating fees or outright bans on petroleum-based plastic shopping bags. In January, China’s State Council banned the production of plastic bags, and beginning June 1, shops, supermarkets, and sales outlets nationwide are barred from handing them out.

In Ireland, government officials passed a tax on plastic shopping bags back in 2002. When customers started getting hit with the 33 cent fee on each and every plastic shopping bag, usage switched within a matter of weeks to reusable cloth bags or backpacks. Consumer behavior was changed and carrying a plastic shopping bag was akin to wearing fur or smoking in a crowded room; in a matter of a few years the behavior became socially unacceptable.

California has also banned chemicals called phthalates, found in soft plastics, from toys and baby products. Research into Bisphenol-A (BpA), used to make polycarbonates, shows that the compound mimics the human hormone estrogen and has been found to stimulate certain types of cancer, cause genetic damage, and leach out of plastic bottles into food and beverages.

Safer alternatives are starting to appear. Bioplastics are showing up in not only food packaging but in the automotive industry, medical devices, as hardware for the computer and electronics industry, on-the-go disposables (cups, plates, cutlery), and in toys.

Engineering Bioplastics for Expanded Uses

Typically thought of as coming from corn, bioplastics can and are being produced from other plant-based feedstocks such as potatoes, sugar beets, sugar cane, cassava, wheat, tapioca, and oils from soybeans. Companies have produced hybrid bioplastic products that incorporate a blend of plant starch with conventional polymers that help manufacturers reduce their dependence on nonrenewable resources and add features such as heat resistance or durability to their products but they cannot claim to be fully biodegradable or compostable.

As the technology continues to evolve, bioplastics will be engineered with the heat-resistance and strength needed for wider use. For example, Metabolix, a Massachusetts company, has developed a biodegradable polymer called Mirel made from bacteria, corn, and air that is able to withstand boiling water.

Innovative companies will be looking at their raw materials, have their finger on the pulse of what is driving consumer demand, and will be assessing the possible health risks of conventional plastics. They will also be keeping an eye out for new technologies or feedstock materials that will help solve some of the early challenges associated with bioplastics as they move from niche industry to the mainstream. Take Cereplast for example. The company now makes 15 grades of resins in its Compostables (TM) line, including a heat-resistant product CP-TH-6000 that can withstand heat up to 155p F. It also has a hybrid resin that is heat resistant up to 250p. To meet the demands for bioplastics Cereplast announced that it is building a new manufacturing facility in Indiana. It will have a half-billion pound capacity when fully operational in 2010.

Completing the Bio-Cycle

In the future, bioplastic products might be recycled into biodiesel. Researchers at Polytechnic University in New York have developed a fuel-latent plastic that is tougher and more durable than standard polyethylene. After use, the product can be placed in a simple converter where enzymes break it down into biodiesel suitable for home heating fuel. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded the university’s researchers $2.34 million to advance the technology and transfer it to industry. The military has shown interest in their discovery for use on the battlefield where it could generate its own fuel and dispose of waste at the same time.

Any company planning to jump on the bioplastic bandwagon by either producing the resin or converting products to a plant-based alternative needs to stay abreast of what is happening in the biofuels arena, too. Bioplastics might be the darlings of the bio-based products industry right now, but it will compete for resources with biofuel producers for limited resources. That could result in higher feedstock prices, which could adversely impact the economics of both industries. In addition, while bioplastics are perceived as environmentally friendly, environmental groups are raising questions about diverting food crop resources to industrial uses. Certain feedstocks, such as corn, are more heavily dependent on agrochemicals and water than others and environmentalists are concerned excess or irresponsible use could impact our environment. They also worry that millions of acres of savannah and rainforest will be lost to make way for bio-crops. This complicated environmental equation could alter the dynamics dramatically.

There are several steps that a biodiesel company must take so that they can produce and run efficiently. They must write out their own business plan, form a board or group of business people, solicit financing, hire an engineering company, develop their markets, and then finally build their plant and business.

For example the business plan for Clean Fuel of Future (CFF) a company based out of the Ukraine is goes as follows. The company has limited liability and offers 80% shares or outside investors. The other 20% is owned by the founder of the company who is Spivak Mykhaylo. Money allocated to the start-up costs that go a long with legal expenses, maintaining the office and facilities employees salaries, are by the direct owner Spivak Mykhaylo.

He expects the other investors to put money towards the purchase of machinery, equipment, chemicals and fuel. Their mission statement is “CFF is a manufacturing company dedicated to developing better energy solutions for benefit of a whole society. We bring innovative technologies and unlimited supply of energy sources without damaging and polluting environment.”

Their product replaces conventional diesel and becomes the most perspective fuel of the twenty first century due to its environmental friendliness, renew ability and low costs. They intend to make lucrative profit to generate a fair return for their investors and to finance continued growth and continued development in a high quality product. They also maintain a friendly, fair, and creative work environment, which respects diversity, new ideas, and hard work.

They believe that it is important to have competitive prices because of the fact that people are not fully aware of it and do not fully understand they cannot sell it above market price. Their marketing strategy which should be the same marketing strategy of all biodiesel production companies is to have a strong emphasis on the quality and focus on their target markets.

Companies must differentiate biodiesel from other fuels that are on the market. They need to establish clearly why their product is better than others. Produce high quality fuel and offer it at a competitive price due to the fact that fuel is already expensive people will certainly not purchase it if they have it for a higher rate. Make sure that the way they distribute is stable because if consumers can not get to it or purchase it then they will purchase something else. They also must build long term relationships to ensure the companies survival and have loyal long term customers.

Incoming search terms for the article:

In a word: not much – at least not for what you get. Whether you buy it or make it yourself, the benefits of biodiesel far outweigh the biodiesel cost in so many ways. This article, examines the actual financial biodiesel cost – both biodiesel prices for those who choose to buy theirs from biodiesel production companies and for making biodiesel oneself.

How do biodiesel prices compare with other fuel costs, mile for mile?

• B100 or 100% biodiesel cost an average of 8.2 cents per mile, and gets:o 37 miles per gallon in the city; o 45 miles per gallon on the highway;

• Unleaded gasoline cost an average of 6.9 cents per mile, and gets: o 25 miles per gallon in the city; o 31 miles per gallon on the highway;

• B20 or a mixture of 80% petroleum-based diesel and 20% biodiesel cost 6.0 cents per mile, and gets: o 37 miles per gallon in the city; o 45 miles per gallon on the highway;

• Conventional, petroleum-based diesel cost an average of 5.2 cents per mile, and gets: o 38 miles per gallon in the city; o 46 miles per gallon on the highway.

The mileage one gets from using biodiesel as compared with regular, unleaded gasoline more than makes up for the slightly higher biodiesel cost, especially when you consider that biodiesel prices should only go down over time, whereas the cost of crude oil, and therefore the price of gas at the pump, is only expected to rise or, at best, settle off somewhere around current prices.

By the same token, the fact that conventional diesel fuel is the cheapest of all of them and gets the best mileage in no way discounts the cost-effectiveness of using biodiesel. Again, while gas and diesel prices are rising, biodiesel cost is expected to soften. A gallon of biodiesel cost $5 just 5 years ago. At the time of this writing biodiesel cost $3.30-$3.50 and is getting lower all the time. (You can find out the currently biodiesel cost as well as the prices for all fuels both alternative and conventional, in a regular newsletter published on the following U.S. DOE web page maintained by the Clean Cities Alternative: [http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/resources/pricereport/price_report.html])

Not only that, but biodiesel also runs cleaner than its contemporaries, and cleans and lubricates engines. All of these factors contribute to prolonging engine life and reducing vehicle maintenance costs.

Biodiesel is also good for the U.S. economy. A surge in biodiesel demand, like the one we’re currently experiencing and which is only expected to continue to swell, is expected within the next 10 years to create up to 50,000 new jobs for Americans.

Over the next 5 years, U.S. farmers could see their bottom line increase by as much as $1 billion thanks to biodiesel. How, you ask? In at least two ways. First, if biodiesel takes off (so to speak), feedstock prices for vegetable oils will steadily increase. The price of a bushel of soybeans, for one, is projected to rise by $0.10 per year if biodiesel overtook diesel and gasoline as our fuel of choice. Secondly, the government is currently (and for a limited time only) offering incentives in the form of tax credits on the cost of biodiesel production (see our companion piece, “Government Incentives and Tax Credits for Biodiesel Production & Sale [http://biodiesel.biogreenlife.com/43/the-government-offers-incentives-for-biodiesel-production-distribution/]”). All this makes one thing abundantly clear – as biodiesel becomes more widely used, it will only become more and more profitable, while at the same time leading to a welcome decline in biodiesel prices as well as the biodiesel cost of production.

Incoming search terms for the article:

Our country has been in troubled economic times for the past year now and almost no one is immune to this recession. It is common knowledge that high oil prices, mortgage debt problems and the war in iraq helped to get us into these troubled times but the the problem is we as a nation depend too much on oil and the oil companies to help satisfy our addiction for quick energy. Another problem is global warming. Many studies have been done that have shown that burning fossil fuels (fuels made from the fossils of animals) contribute significantly to global warming because they increase greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Also there are many leading experts that are saying we are nearing peak oil levels which means that the production of oil has neared to a point where it will level off. Combine this with the fact that oil demands among the new powerhouse nations like China and India are increasing at astronomical rates you can begin to see the urgency for us to start researching alternative biofuels that will help us solve the global warming problem and also give us cheaper fuels sources that we can easily duplicate.

One incredible new alternative energy source for use in automobiles is the Air Engine. It is an engine that works by expanding compressed air and this releases energy. This method is not really anything new and has actually been around for a few centuries but the technology is starting to become very efficient during the last few years. A company called Zero Pollution Motors has been working on a car that runs on air and a combination of either ethanol or most kinds of biofuels. Theoretically this air car could have a range of between 750 to 950 miles based on a single tank of air and 8.2 gallons of biofuel. This is an exciting new kind of vehicle with the potential to have zero emissions which would be awesome for our atmosphere as well. ZPM says that they will have the air car into the market by sometime in 2010. Imagine having your very own car that runs on air and has a range of just under 1000 miles per fillup. Alot of people are looking at the Chevy volt all electric vehicle as our savior but with this air car it will utilize biofuels in a way that will not only help us end ourt dependency on oil but also give our atmosphere some breathing room to get out of the danger zone of global warming.

Incoming search terms for the article:

Any fuel made to drive a diesel engine is called diesel fuel. Most people are familiar with petrodiesel, and don’t even bother to add the prefix. But advances in physical and chemical biomass conversion and processing have made the term biodiesel a term that may not yet be commonplace but has probably been heard by most adults in developed nations. The usual sources for biodiesel are oils and fats, which are mixed with a solution of methanol that contains sodium hydroxide (lye, an extremely caustic substance). Amazingly, the eponymous Rudolf Diesel demonstrated biodiesel at the 1900 Paris World Exposition using an engine that ran on peanut oil. Gasoline engines rely on a spark to fire, and can be quite finicky about fuel, but diesel engines depend on high cylinder compression to heat and ignite the air/fuel mix, so many modern diesel engines can run on 100 percent biodiesel and others can run on petro-bio mixes. That’s good news for the air: according to the Department of Energy, pure biodiesel emits 75 percent less CO2 than petrodiesel, and mixes by anywhere between 75 and 15 percent.

There are many potential biomass sources for making biodiesel. For example, the Industrial Agricultural Products Center, which is part of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, recognized that its home state leads the nation in commercial cattle slaughter. That process yields not only the steaks and burgers in your grocery store but also 1 billion pounds a year of tallow. Accordingly, the IAPC has developed a biodiesel that makes use of this largely unused material.

Food industry giant Perdue Incorporated (the chicken people) actually formed a BioEnergy group dedicated to biofuels. Oddly enough, Perdue is the twelfth-largest grain company in the United States and has three soybean crushing plants and a deepwater port, so the company works with biodiesel and ethanol producers to make feedstock (any raw material fed into an industrial process in this case, for generating power).

Another food industry heavyweight, Tyson Foods, produces more leftover animal fat (from chickens, cattle, and hogs) than any other company in the U.S. The company recently announced a renewable energy division of its own to put to use the 2.3 billions pounds of chicken fat they create each year. That could make around 300 million gallons of pure biodiesel, or go into the most popular petro-bio mix, a B20 fuel 80 percent petrodiesel, and 20 percent biodiesel. Americans use almost 40 billion gallons of diesel a year.

Biodiesel currently has a good news/bad news story. The good news is that it exists, it works, and it’s getting easier: in 2000 there were 88 plants in the U.S. producing 250 million gallons of biodiesel. The bad news is that most of the biodiesel (and other biofuels) comes not from industry leftover but from energy crops such as soybeans, which require significant farm acreage that could otherwise be used to produce vegetables and grains for human consumption.

The Defense Energy Support Center, which handles securing fuel for the Depart of Defense, is the single-largest consumer in the U.S. of biodiesel (5.2 million gallons in 2003-2004; more recent figures are unavailable). The U.S. began using B20 in its non-tactical vehicles in 2003. The military consumes between 120 and 145 million barrels of oil in a single year; according to the Department of Defense, every $10 increase in the price per barrel of oil means another $1.3 billion the military needs to keep its fleets operational.

Incoming search terms for the article:

The Taranaki Basin is New Zealand’s premier Oil and Gas exploration region with about 11 petroleum mining licenses or permits fields. The production and use of Hydrocarbons in New Zealand only became significant in the 1960s in terms of the country’s economy and its fuel needs. A BP 2008 Statistical Energy Survey established that New Zealand consumed an average of 151.03 barrels a day. Over 80% of New Zealand’s Oil and Gas comes from the Maui and Kapuni fields. Another BP Statistical Energy Survey of 2007 reported that the country had a natural gas production of 4.01m³ billion and the consumption stood at 3.74 billion cubic metres.

Major industry players include companies such as Shell, NZ Oil and Gas, a wellington based petroleum and mineral exploration company with permits in the Taranaki basin and coking deposits in the Paparoa mountain range; Powerco, 100% public listed company, the second largest gas and electricity company with further operations in Tasmania and Australia, and the Auckland Gas company that provides gas for residential or commercial customers in the Auckland region and is a fervent competitor having been in the market for quite a long time.

The petroleum products industry in New Zealand consists of five companies: British Petroleum (BP), Chevron (marketing as Caltex), Mobil (an affiliate of ExxonMobil), Shell and Gull. BP, Caltex, Mobil and Shell dominate the market and supply a full range of products. Gull has a smaller market share and has limited its participation to petrol and diesel sales. Gull was the first oil company to offer biofuels in New Zealand; a blend of premium petrol (90%) and bio-ethanol (10%) is available at many of its retail outlets. Mobil has now also entered the bio-fuel market in New Zealand. It now offers regular and premium petrol blended with bio-ethanol, and a 5% bio-diesel blend at a few of its retail outlets.

This month, the Economic Development Ministry in New Zealand granted ROC Oil ltd. and its joint venture partners exploration permit PEP52181. Located offshore Taranaki, the permit contains the Kaheru prospect and is on trend with the Rimu Oil and Gas fields and Kauri gas and condensate field. The prospect has 3D seismic coverage and the agreed work program for the five year term includes an exploration well (Kaheru-1) in year three. ROC will operate the 171.5km² permit with other participating interests as ROC Oil (NZ-operated) – 50%; Mighty River Power and Gas Investments- 20%, L&M Energy- 15% and Mosaic Oil NL- 15%.

Incoming search terms for the article:

Thanks to the advent of alternative power, no longer must we rely on depleting the planet of its natural resources, burning fossil fuels that cause pollution of the atmosphere, depletion of the ozone layer, can potentially be unstable (as in nuclear energy), and continues to increase in cost year after year. The main sources of alternative power are the following:

o energy producing crops: synthetic biofuels and direct combustion;

o wind power and power from waves and tides;

o hydroelectric (water) power;

o solar power: heat and electricity;

o heat power: from man-made and natural waste products and from the making of synthetic bio-fuels;

By definition, an energy resource is renewable if it is replaced at a rate equal to or faster than the rate at which it is consumed. Renewable energy is therefore also considered sustainable energy, since it will continue to be available in unending supply even as it’s being utilized. Renewable energy has also been given the moniker alternative energy in reference to the alternative it offers to conventional, non-renewable sources.

Renewable energy can be utilized in one of two ways:

o directly: as in water mills, windmills, solar ovens, geothermal heating;

o indirectly: using the renewable resources to create other sources of power, either as fuels (biodiesel, bioethanol, biogas) or by generating electricity (wind turbines, solar panels).

Before renewable energy replaces the conventional sources of power that we’re used to (ie. public utility grid power), it will take years of research and development, continually studying, experimenting, improving, and innovating. The study of renewable energy, its applications and repercussions is concerned with environmental, economical, social, and political factors.

The reasons for switching from conventional, non-renewable energy to renewable energy are vast and varied, and the list grows larger every day. Among them are:

o it has a small to nil environmental impact with little to no harmful emissions, as a result supporting and protecting our natural ecosystem for future generations to enjoy;

o supplementing utility power with renewable power allows you a precious and invaluable backup system in the case of emergencies such as power outages and shortages;

o once a renewable energy system is installed, the energy costs a consistent amount to use year-round – as opposed to utilities that fluctuate in price throughout the year based on seasonal as well as socio-political factors;

o it is “distributed” energy, or energy that is used in the same location where it is produced – this cuts down considerably on transportation and distribution costs;

o many local and state governments as well as the federal government offer incentives in the form of tax breaks for the production and use of renewable energies;

o if you produce more power using renewable resources than you need for your own personal use, you can actually sell that power back to the utility companies in a program called “net metering”.

To complete a truly well-rounded discussion on renewable energy, there must be equal time given to its drawbacks as to its benefits. The most prevalent concerns about the long-term viability of renewable energies are that it is extremely dependent on numerous climactic factors and that it is considered “diluted” energy in that much more is needed to generate much less power. These so-called drawbacks, however, are no reason not to continue a fervent pursuit of incorporating renewable energy usage into more and more parts of our everyday lives. They are only to keep us present to the issues we must address in order to make a widespread switch to renewable energies a viable reality.

Biofuel has been around for long than any of us have been alive. Indeed, the first diesel cars were designed to run on peanut oil in the 1880s!

Rupert Diesel could even be considered one of the fathers of environmental awareness since he wanted to prove that automobiles didn’t have to depend on fossil fuels, so those diesel engines ran on peanut oil for the next 40 years.

Even Henry Ford mass-produced biofuel cars, beginning with the 1908 Model T Ford, and owned his own ethanol plant. 25% of the fuel sold by Standard Oil was biofuel. Eventually hemp became one of the main resources used for biofuels production since it produced so much more fuel than did peanut oil.

Unfortunately, the growing oil industry decided that petroleum based products were ‘better’…even though they weren’t…and, through aggressive marketing, convinced people that oil and gas were better and cheaper.

When they began demonizing hemp as “the evils of marijuana” – even though the hemp used in biofuels production wouldn’t get anyone high – it was the beginning of the end. Up until that point, hemp usage had been legal in the United States. After the oil companies got through with their intense marketing, the biodiesel industry collapsed in the 1930s.

After World War II, petroleum companies also started buying up trolley car lines, which ran on electricity, and replacing them with buses running on diesel, and pushed for new highways. The boom following World War II led to an explosion of car purchases – all running on petroleum-based products, not biofuels.

What the oil companies didn’t recognize then was that non-renewal energy sources are finite. That we would run out of oil. That we would become dependent on foreign old resources only 40 years later… and not be able to control foreign oil forever. After all, what are a few decades when they were getting rich then?

Now the auto industry is coming around full circle as public demand for more environmentally friendly cars that use renewable energy sources. Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge RAM trucks are among the 2008 vehicles that are designed to run on biofuels. Flex-fuel and hybrid cars also are being sold in greater numbers, and all US cars sold since 2000 can run n a combination of gas and biofuels.

Of course, the petroleum industry still fights back, coming up with reports claiming that petroleum is better for car engines than biofuels, an approach that is disputed by many other studies. But by 1985, all cars in Brazil could run on biofuels. Many other countries have been turning to biofuels over the past 20 years and, unlike in the United States, biofuels are available at most service stations across Europe.

There are currently several hundred major fleets of biofuels vehicles – cars, buses, and vans – in the United States, including fleets used by the military, the US Postal Service, and many transit systems.

So, while the petroleum industry fights to keep their control over the fuel industry, it looks like the history of biofuels cars, while shunted aside for a while, is still be written.

Incoming search terms for the article: