It's been a while since we've posted here. Our writers have moved to EcoNuz to write. They are not very active at the moment, but more to come.

Some say that Oil Companies do not receive subsidies because the US government does not directly write checks to corporations. Oil companies do receive considerable tax breaks. When tax breaks are challenged, "grass roots organizations" run campaigns to scare voters into believing the price at the pump will rise. A somewhat recent example in California, Prop 87, which did not pass, was an example of a tax break on oil production that would have been repealed so voters would not have to directly finance the most profitable companies in history.

A more recent article on treehugger highlights that even ignoring the cost of war, the US pays billions (with a "b") a year to protect oil production. The cost of protecting production and the supply even exceeds the value of oil that comes out of the region. US military expenditures come directly out of the taxpayers' pockets, so even if consumers do not pay at the pump, they still pay through taxes.

The current system is worse than paying at the pump, because consumers have no choice, and the cost per person is not proportional to consumption. When people pay at the pump, they can save by conserving. When the cost is through income tax, there is no option to stem the flow of money from their pockets to the oil companies and their investors.

One major complaint of car manufacturers objecting to the new fuel economy standards is that the technology to achieve higher mpg is either too expensive or does not exist. There are plenty of existing technologies that already exist, and in some cases could be a simple software fix that could potentially improve fuel economy without decreasing power, such as:

• Stopping the engine, or reducing the number of cylinders firing when the accelerator is not depressed
• Only engaging the alternator when the car is slowing down or the battery needs more power
• Cooling the intake air

The above changes could be implemented without full platform changes, and could provide significant improvements in fuel economy. Stopping the engine at rest or when the accelerator is not pressed could cost additional money, as there could be additional overhead necessary to restart the engine. However, existing computer technology already in the car can control the fuel and air mix, which could potentially be set to zero for most of the cylinders, using only enough gas to keep the engine from stalling.

For many cars, the alternator is engaged all the time, even if the battery is fully charged. Mechanical energy from the engine is converted into electrical energy when the alternator is spinning. If the alternator is connected to the engine, it diverts energy to the battery, taking away from the energy being used to propel the vehicle forward. Detaching the alternator when not needed would increase fuel economy. Re-engaging it when decelerating would be a poor-man's equivalent of regenerative braking, and would recapture energy that would otherwise be lost when stopping. Unfortunately, as more electronics are added to a vehicle's interior, battery power becomes more necessary, reducing the payback of this measure over time.

Cooling the intake air is something that would require some internal changes to the engine, but is readily available cheaply. Cooler gases expand more than hot gases when the engine fires, increasing the total power produced for the same amount of fuel.

While auto manufacturers are correct in that additional development means additional cost, they strategically omit the fact that there are additional things that can be done with today's technologies at relatively low cost.

CA has repeatedly been issued Clean Air Act waivers so they could regulate emissions to a greater extent than what is required by the Federal Government. In the most recent round of regulations, the EPA refused to grant the waiver without providing adequate justification.

In response, CA (and other states) filed suit against the EPA so to produce documentation on why the waiver was not granted. The EPA had 60 days to produce internal documents about the decision to deny California's request, and in spite of the Subpoena, they have refused to produce the documents. A Congressional subpoena cannot be ignored because the documents "do not reflect the Agency's final thinking." The EPA has no legal grounds for refusing to comply with the subpoena, but did not produce the requisite documents.

If the EPA does not have to comply with the law, CA should ignore the EPA's decisions and implement stricter state regulations anyway. If the EPA does not comply with Congressional decisions on the matter, why would the DoJ enforce any of the EPA's regulations in CA if the state did not comply?

The first LEED certified parking garage opens in Santa Monica, CA via Vous Pensez

From TreeHugger.com

A recent article in LifeHacker explains how eating local foods is better for the environment and economy.

The most energy efficient process for water desalinization is currently Reverse Osmosis (RO). Previous RO systems that did not rely on the electrical grid involved using wind turbines to generate electricity, which in turn provided power to the mechanical pumps that drove the RO process.

Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands has come up with a low tech way to eliminate the energy loss in converting wind to electricity, then back to mechanical energy. They have devised a system to directly convert wind energy into the mechanical energy necessary to run the pumps driving the RO process.

It's a cheap low tech solution that provides a solution to an important future problem.

A private company called Luxim has recently produced a tiny plasma based light bulb that produces as much light as a standard street lamp. The new technology is even more energy efficient than current LED technology that produces up to 70 Lumens per Watt of electricity. Standard incandescent light bulbs produce about 15 Lumens per Watt.

The new plasma lights, which are about the size of a Tic Tac, can produce up to 140 Lumens per Watt.

Video on: CNET

A former colleague of mine introduced me to a network of like minded people that meet in different cities to discuss environmental issues and technologies. The "Green Drinks" group meets informally once a month to network, discuss issues, develop ideas, etc.

Thanks, Kei!