Blog

DEFEND TILL.... (Nigel Potter - Music / Greg Allen - voice)

Defend Till...

Greg Allen recites a recent reading on his appearance on Zest Radio Show March 24 2007.

This instrumental music piece, Guardian Angel, generously provided by, Nigel Potter / copyright 2009

Nigel Potter music can be found at;
http://nigel-potter.soundawesome.com/

Greg states,

"What I read recently, struck me....

If we believe our food comes from the supermarket...

and...

If we believe that our water comes from the tap...

If we believe that it is the mechanisms of our economic systems that actually preserve us...

Then we will defend that till the death....

If we realize, that in fact...

Our food comes from the living beings around us...

The water comes from the sky...

That the land we live on is what nurtures us...

Then we will defend that to the death..."

Images are the property of their owners.

NASA images and animations used with permission of common sharing license. For further details please visit;

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/useterms.php

Dear friends,

We hope you are all having a great summer.

Below please find an official invitation letter, and subsequent documentation of the title of this bulletin;

The Fork in the Road: Nuclear or Green Power

We hope you find the release of this information engaging and educational.

Please, feel free to share with any person you feel may have an interest in discussing further.

We remain, your friends, and, concerned citizens of the future in store for us all.

Any feedback that is given in response to this information shall be passed on to Greg and the team of, Keep The Green Alive !!!!

We have posted the information below in 3 blogs on our page. Please stop by and leave us your thoughts.

www.myspace.com/keep_the_green_alive

Thank you for your continued support and friendship.

Peace, and best regards,

Paul, Greg, and the team of,
KEEP THE GREEN ALIVE !!!!

P.S. If you have ever wondered, whom are the team of Keep The Green Alive....well...it's all of us...PEACE!

Energy Scarcity and GHG Risks of Nuclear Power - Letter to George Smitherman

2009 January 27

Mr. George Smitherman
Minister of Energy and Infrastructure
Ministry of Energy
Province of Ontario, Canada

Dear Mr. Smitherman,

At a presentation with you and David Suzuki recently, Greg Allen, an engineer with decades of experience in energy efficient systems design, brought up a concern about the declining availability of energy resources and the potential problem this brings to long-term infrastructure projects such as nuclear reactors. He was asked to provide a summary of his concerns. This collaboration arose from that request.

Declining energy availability has the potential to dramatically alter our economy within the next decade. Committing to large infrastructure projects that span this period without taking into account the changing energy context risks serious negative outcomes. As the Minister of a powerful new Ministry created to look into just these sorts of issues, you have a solemn responsibility to consider energy availability in planning Ontario’s energy future. It would be grossly negligent to ignore this issue, and the public should be outraged if Ontario invests in a wasteful and imprudent course. Far from being a low-cost solution to climate change and energy security, a decision to proceed on nuclear plant construction is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions for more than a decade before any reactors come on line, defer sustainable energy development to a time of shortages, and bequeath custody of nuclear waste to a generation struggling with global warming and energy scarcity.

We respectfully ask that you reconsider Ontario’s existing Request for Proposal for nuclear power. We believe that Ontario’s nuclear RFP should not proceed until an independent evaluation is performed of the value of nuclear in terms of overall energy delivery, emissions reductions, steadiness of energy delivery and projected costs when potential fuel shortages are taken into account. The life cycle energy return on energy invested (EROEI) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for nuclear power versus alternative strategies have never been adequately reviewed by an independent commission, and have a potential to seriously undermine nuclear power as a viable generation strategy.

The assessment we propose would have to take into account the potential impact of fossil fuel depletion, the additional impact of taxing, capping or rationing carbon in the future for climate change concerns and the effect of declining uranium ore grade on the cost and efficiency of nuclear power. These costs would be calculated in terms of dollar value, in terms of life cycle energy costs and in terms of emissions embodied in the full process. The review would also evaluate the effect of irregularities in energy delivery and Ontario’s capacity to handle them, since a nuclear reactor delivers significant electricity in operation but incurs correspondingly large amounts of energy both during construction and at the end of its working life. Finally, the review would have to compare, on the basis of all the above criteria, the nuclear alternative with a non-nuclear path, which would involve a baseload delivered primarily by dispersed wind resources supplemented by energy storage, and with peak loads managed by a combination of solar inputs, pricing mechanisms to shift the load, additional storage and biomass generation. We note that the nuclear option would also require modeling for the handling of peak loads which nuclear power itself cannot reliably provide.

We request a meeting in person to discuss the issues at stake.

Thank you,

Greg Allen, BASc, P. Eng., LEED AP

Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu
Post Carbon Toronto

Peter A. Victor, Ph.D. (Economics)
Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Joshua A. Pearce, a professor of Mechanical and Materials Engineering of Queen’s University, who has published research into the embodied energy and emissions in nuclear reactors, has helped compile the information below and would like to be included in any discussion.

Joshua Pearce, Ph.D.

Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
Queen’s University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


We’re running out of the cheap, plentiful fossil fuels that propel our economy. Climate change concerns may compel us to stop using our current energy resources even more quickly than resource limits will force us to. How we allocate the rapidly dwindling energy resources will become ever more critical.

Ontario is planning an electricity future that reduces our eventual dependence on fossil fuels. This is wise. However, it is also imperative that we consider the energy we’ll need to invest into the transformation of Ontario’s electricity infrastructure. We must also carefully consider the resulting emissions from this transformation. This restructuring will occur in a world of declining energy availability, greater embodied energy in the remaining fuel sources and correspondingly further constricted net energy availability, and necessary emissions reductions that should reduce energy availability still further. Adopting a plan that involves high energy and high emissions undermines our commitment to greenhouse gas reductions and threatens serious economic consequences for poor planning.

For this reason, it’s important to aggressively focus our efforts on the most energy efficient ways of achieving emissions reductions. It’s also wise to focus on rapid returns, partly because it will help Ontario to achieve our own emissions reduction goals in the short term and partly because it reduces a great deal of economic risk.

Ontario is planning enormous investments in nuclear power. Instead of rapidly reducing energy demand and emissions, nuclear investments commit Ontario to an escalation of both in the medium term. This is imprudent at a time when both the price of energy itself and the economic consequences of not reducing emissions are likely to increase capital costs of any kind of construction. Failure to meet emissions targets may soon result in punitive consequences for Ontario as well, while exceeding emissions targets could produce financial rewards.

The quickest and least energy-consuming way to increase emission-free generation is with renewables, and Ontario is to be lauded for introducing the first standard offer contracts in North America to encourage their expansion. Conservation is even more economical and can usually be implemented even more quickly. As energy prices increase, more aggressive conservation measures will become economical as well. We need to focus on these methods to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, as most jurisdictions are doing, and as most analysts recommend.

Ontario should urgently prioritize renewable power for transmission capacity and systematically unlock the barriers to renewable penetration, rather than hobble renewable expansion with arbitrary limits to make way for an uncertain nuclear future.

A commitment to new nuclear development will undermine prospects of an electricity system based on renewable energy and efficiency, the least-cost means of providing energy services and GHG reductions. Here’s why. (The following points are more fully explained under Detailed Concerns, starting on page 6.)

1. The capital energy commitments of nuclear power.

Nuclear power requires enormous capital investments that depend on energy commitments several times greater than the green alternatives. This ties up investment in inflexible projects, leaving no room to adapt as energy prices change.

2. The uncertain future of nuclear fuels.

Nuclear power relies on a fuel source that will require increasing amounts of energy to produce and, if world demand increases, may be depleted of economically recoverable resource before the end of a new plant’s service life.

3. The risks of nuclear economics.

The cost of nuclear power has historically been greatly misrepresented and most independent analysts have concluded that costs of generation will be much higher than the industry claims. The diversion of financial capital away from lean and green investment will result in higher-than-necessary energy costs.

4. The problem of deferring emissions reductions.

Even if all uncertainties work out in favour of nuclear, it dramatically defers emissions reductions and increases upfront energy demand, effectively raising emissions in the medium term, thus defying one of the stated objectives of nuclear power.

5. The end-of-life energy problem.

Nuclear power creates a legacy of high-level toxic waste, which creates an end-of-life energy imbalance problem that may be even more serious than the front-end challenges listed above.

6. The lack of dispatchability.

A frequent argument for nuclear, that it solves the intermittency problem of renewables, is deceptive and wrong. Neither nuclear power nor renewables address dispatchability, which is the real service currently delivered by fossil fuels. The requirements for reserve capacity, biofuel generation, and energy storage are similar for both nuclear power and renewables.

In a very polarized debate about the validity of nuclear power as a greenhouse gas solution, a number of very reputable analysts have recently cautioned against nuclear investments. Their reports should be examined. Ontario’s stated commitment to a large nuclear baseload looks very imprudent when these are considered.

A presentation prepared for the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in June 2008 summarises the expected impacts of higher energy prices on new generation and singles out nuclear as a standout poor investment. After noting that the expenses of building new nuclear generation would be especially high as a result of high energy inputs, high labour costs and extensive need for steel, concrete and other commodities which are rising in price, the report made an additional note:

Similarly, these estimates generally do not include a full accounting of major risk factors, especially those affecting coal and nuclear plants. Both of these technologies have long lead times. That increases the chance that market conditions will change before they are complete and adds to the financial risk of building them. Nuclear plants also have risks associated with both decommissioning and waste fuel disposal.

— http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/06-19-08-cost-electric.pdf

A Stanford University study by Mark Jacobsen recently evaluated methods of reducing emissions and concluded that the most promising prospects received least government attention and funding. Nuclear power was identified as one of the uneconomical approaches. Investments in conservation and wind were determined to be much more pragmatic.

— http://rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c

FEASTA, the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, has issued a statement outlining the risks of nuclear investment which closely parallels the concerns outlined here:

— http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power2.htm

The Energy Watch Group has recently published an assessment of global wind power which attacks the projections of the IEA. The report demonstrates the historic failure of the IEA to predict the growth in installed wind capacity, which greatly exceeds expectations year after year. It also outlines the reasons why wind power will remain the best investment and explains why wind power can expect continued growth.

— http://energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/2009-01_Wind_Power_Report.pdf

In contrast, a new study by Craig A. Severance suggests that the price of nuclear generation in the future may be as high as 25-30 cents/kWh and outlines the reasons why nuclear is a poor choice for new generation.

— http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

Detailed concerns

1. The capital energy commitments of nuclear power

The chief emerging constraint for energy planning is energy availability itself. Reliable and economical energy availability is critical to the planning of large infrastructure projects that extend into the future. Future supplies of global oil and North American natural gas will be increasingly tight through simple resource scarcity. Climate change concerns will only amplify the problem and will likely eliminate coal as an alternative to fill any gaps. As a result, energy prices will soar, either due to scarcity or due to market mechanisms to control carbon emissions or, most likely, through a combination of both. In addition to this gloomy prospect, we must add the fact that new energy sources are increasingly energy intensive to find and extract, further reducing usable energy and raising energy prices higher still.

While the precise availability and costs of future energy sources depend on use patterns throughout the world and are impossible to be certain of today, it’s safe to say that energy will be both more rare and more expensive in the future and that it will become increasingly challenging to meet emissions reduction goals through capital investment in low-emissions generation.

It is impossible to reliably predict just how dramatic the effect of declining energy resources will be on energy price. However there are some hints. At least two studies have attempted to answer that question. In a paper for the Brookings Institution in 2001, George Perry suggested that a 1% cut in supply would result in a 20% price rise, though this would be attenuated somewhat as the resulting depressed GDP would subsequently reduce oil demand.

— http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/perry/20011024.pdf

A simulation study from the National Commission on Energy from 2005 predicted that a 4% shortfall in global supply would yield a price increase of 177%.

— http://energycommission.org/files/contentFiles/oil_shockwave_report_440cc39a643cd.pdf

Existing data from the last couple of years confirm the trend predicted by Perry of high prices followed by economic decline, demand reductions and dropping prices. If anything, though, the experience of 2008 suggests greater price hikes than predicted above. According to BP, world oil production fell 0.2% in 2007, but consumption still grew by 1.1%, leading to an imbalance between production and consumption. Prices rose. While final data for 2008 is unavailable, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), global consumption stagnated in 2008 as prices reached a high point of $147/barrel. The EIA predicts that in 2009, consumption will fall by 800,000 barrels/day due to the economic downturn. Oil prices have dropped two thirds of their high price. If stagnating production or declines of a fraction of a percentage point can cause prices to double or triple, we must consider what the effect will be if production declines by 2% or 4% or more annually, as it inevitably will eventually.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_review_2008.pdf

— http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo

If declining energy availability drives economic downturns, which in turn reduce energy demand, then our expectations of economic growth and expanding energy demand from all sources may be erroneous. Over the next years, our economy may experience dramatic changes. Today, 8 reactors begun in the 1980s sit unfinished in the world, victims of economic downturns, reduced demand and escalating construction costs.

Declining energy availability will affect all infrastructure projects, not just nuclear. However, small projects with rapid completion times are more flexible in deployment than large projects with longer term construction times. Three years into deployment, it’s possible to reevaluate a rapid programme of renewable deployment and decide that due to rising energy prices, it has become more economical to invest in more conservation measures and to reduce by a third the number of wind turbines planned. It is impossible to build 2/3 of a reactor already in construction. If we’re already building 3 reactors, it’s possible to abandon one of the three. However, that abandoned reactor represents an enormous irrecoverable energy resource that could have been used instead for more useful things.

Declining energy supplies demand careful selection of only the most efficient and most flexible methods of delivering new generation.

Here are the potential concerns to be considered for fossil fuel energy sources. The potential resource constraints of uranium will be covered in the next point.

Oil

Predictions about future energy availability vary a great deal. If we focus on global oil supplies, we see that some oil companies expect growing production beyond 2030. Other analysts expect more or less rapid decline from now on. There is a tremendous reliance on data supplied by companies involved in fossil fuel extraction or by the countries where the resources are located. It is in the interest of these entities to encourage continued fossil fuel dependence so they are unlikely to promote appropriate reductions as reserves decline. Because OPEC permits production volumes on the basis of declared reserves, many OPEC countries have claimed growing reserves over decades, even as resources are rapidly extracted and no significant discoveries are announced.

For this reason, the Energy Watch Group (EWG) in Germany has produced an alternative supply outlook based on actual production patterns. The sobering predictions may well prove to be far more accurate than those supplied by the International Energy Agency in their World Energy Outlook. EWG suggests there are 854GB remaining while the industry suggests 1,255GB. From a peak of 81 MB/d extraction in 2006, the EWG report predicts a rapid decline to 58 MB/d by 2020 and 39 MB/d by 2030. Given the sharp price increases that even tiny supply constraints produced in 2008, we should expect that such dramatic supply reductions would result in correspondingly dramatic increases in fuel prices. At the very least, the report deserves consideration for sensible planning. Updated in February 2008, the Energy Watch Group report can be found here:

— http://energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/2008-02_EWG_Oil_Report_updated.pdf


In fact, the EWG report may not be sobering enough. While it measures the total liquid fuels extracted, it does not take into consideration the increasing energy inputs required for extraction. The net available energy from oil production declines more rapidly than the total extracted as more and more marginal reserves are pursued. Colin Campbell has calculated that well before the half century mark is reached, our use of oil will effectively end altogether as remaining reserves require more energy to extract than they can be expected to produce.

Natural Gas

North American natural gas supplies are likely to have future constraints as well. The National Energy Board’s latest report for short-term natural gas deliverability, while somewhat more hopeful than the report for the previous year, observes that natural gas deliverability in Canada began to decline in mid-2007 and is expected to continue declining through 2010. The report notes:

Drilling and development activity in the WCSB hinges primarily on the price of natural gas in the North American market relative to the costs incurred. That price is volatile, influenced by uncertainties such as weather-driven market demand, changes in North American natural gas supply, cost, relative attractiveness of other basins, competition with oil-related projects, availability of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) and possible supply disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico.

— http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/ntrlgs/ntrlgsdlvrblty20082010/ntrlgsdlvrblty20082010-eng.html

Development of new natural gas sources is increasingly focused on non-conventional sources such as coal bed methane and shale gas, as well as on liquefied natural gas from Asian sources. All of these sources are both energy and emissions intensive to explore and deliver. As a result, they will become increasingly expensive, especially if market mechanisms to control emissions are introduced, such as carbon taxes, capping or rationing mechanisms.

A table showing the drilling costs for oil and gas wells in the United States 1960-2006 was developed by the US Energy Information Administration. In addition to fairly dramatic cost increases per foot of drilling, the depth of the average well has been steadily increasing as deeper reserves are sought. As a result, in steady 2000 dollars, the average cost of US oil and gas wells rose seven-fold between 1960 and 2006 from $261,100.00 in 1960 to $1,803,000.00 in 2006.

— http://eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0408.html

More recently the pattern has sharply intensified. The American Petroleum Institute recently reported that the 2007 Joint Association Survey on Drilling Costs has concluded that US drilling costs for oil and natural gas doubled in 2007 over the previous year, which itself was a record year. The cost per well almost doubled for oil and more than doubled per natural gas well. And the reserves discovered are almost certainly smaller, deeper and farther away from pipelines. This is the pattern that makes unconventional sources increasingly attractive.

— http://api.org/Newsroom/drilling_expenditure.cfm

Coal

Coal has a worrisome potential as a strong greenhouse gas emitter that is not yet facing extreme supply constraints. However, recent reserve estimates have been far less hopeful than those in the past. The Energy Watch Group, performing an analysis similar to their analysis of liquid fuels, has suggested that global coal production, if unaffected by climate change concerns, would likely peak shortly after 2020.

— http://energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

The more immediate impact on coal is likely to be brought on by regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions. A carbon tax of $70/tonne would more than double the cost of electricity from existing coal-powered generating facilities. Cap and trade mechanisms are likely to have a similar effect on price, particularly if they are restricted to industrial emitters. Well before a price doubling was reached, however, conservation and other generation options would become far more attractive. This would be the intended consequence of such market mechanisms. Alternately, a coal phase-out may be mandated. Whatever the mechanism, if climate change is taken at all seriously, coal use will be severely restricted in the future.

2. The uncertain future of nuclear fuels

There is a tremendous dispute about the future availability of economically recoverable uranium. Obviously, it’s in the interest of the nuclear industry to deny any resource constraints, just as it is in the interest of the oil industry to dismiss any concerns about future scarcity of oil. Analysts who express concern about uranium supplies are often hostile to, or at least suspicious of nuclear power. What is absolutely clear is that there is a potential for significant uranium price escalation and that the availability and cost of future uranium supplies will be enormously dependent on the number of reactors operating worldwide, a situation Ontario cannot control.

The Energy Watch Group has published a report on uranium reserves that suggests that at current rates of use, proven reserves will be exhausted in 30 years, and possible reserves will be gone in 70 years with supply problems possible even before 2020 as fuel from retired weapons runs out and with new sources uanble to come into production in time to bridge the gap. To be fair, the report also suggests that maintaining current rates of use is highly unlikely, given that new nuclear power plants are not keeping up with the plant closures, but that in itself is suggestive of the choices most jurisdictions are making. Not a single reactor is under construction in all of North America.

— http://energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Uranium_3-12-2006ms.pdf

A number of reputable analysts have concluded that the energy contributions of nuclear power become increasingly debatable with ore grades below 0.02%, and vanish with ore grades below 0.01%. Long before such low ore grades are reached, however, nuclear power becomes less and less efficient at delivering net energy. This has not been a problem when energy is cheap and can be converted relatively easily. It will be an increasing problem as ore grades decline at the same time as fossil fuels are depleted and market mechanisms or other barriers are set up to bring down carbon emissions. It will be increasingly difficult and expensive to find nuclear fuel unless few reactors are built worldwide and demand collapses.

Even assuming that uranium ore grades remain available, Joshua Pearce (formerly of Clarion University of Pennsylvania, now at Queen’s University in Kingston) has documented the difficulty that nuclear power has in making any net energy gains when reactors are built in quick succession. The energy inputs required for any kind of generation put a thermodynamic limit on the rate at which new generation can be added without using up more energy than they produce. The nuclear strategy for emissions reductions is especially challenging. As a single strategy for emissions reductions, it would produce more emissions during the next decades than it would save. Mr. Pearce’s paper is not available online. It was published in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2008.

3. The risks of nuclear economics

Ontario already has a history with nuclear power. Our existing reactors have been routinely over budget and behind schedule. They have required extensive and costly refurbishments even to reach the lifetime that was initially planned for them. Ontarians are still paying for the economic mistakes of the past.

In a 2006 article, Business Week remarked that while the nuclear industry suggested costs of $1500-$2000/kWe of capacity, in reality all recent reactors have had construction costs above that range, even though they were built in jurisdictions with fewer regulatory hurdles and often lower construction costs.

— http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_28/b3992063.htm

A proposed new nuclear plant to be constructed by Progress Energy in Levy County, Florida, was recently announced with costs approximately $3500/kWe.

Meanwhile, in June of last year, Moody’s warned that investment in nuclear could result in a 25-30% devaluation in the financial credit metrics of an electrical utility, as true costs for reactors potentially exceed US$7000/kWe.

— http://www.tuumaenergia.ee/index.php?id=65&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=541&cHash=89ba3c9f91

The future for nuclear economics looks gloomier still. The best uranium sources have already been exploited, leading to higher fuel costs. Construction costs are likely to increase with global energy scarcity, which will not only raise costs directly, but increase the costs of construction materials as well. An emerging global determination to reduce carbon emissions will almost certainly raise energy costs still further, either directly or through further restriction of fossil fuels.

Authors:

Greg Allen, BASc, P. Eng., LEED AP

and,

Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu
Post Carbon Toronto

<object width="425" height="355">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7IcC3auRuAQ&amp;rel=1" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7IcC3auRuAQ&amp;rel=1" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="355"></embed>
</object>
Hello friends,<br /><br />I hope you are all well. <br /><br />Here is a video I crafted for Maria Daines and Paul Killington's beautiful song, Callianne.<br /><br /&gt'Callianne' A song of the Sea /><br />Please check this out if you need a 4 minute break from the hurry scurry of it all.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />Paul / Zest

<span class="postbody"><span style="font-size: small;">Dear friends of peace, <br /><br />Thank you in advance for reading this important announcement about the video release of Maria Daines and Paul Killington&rsquo;s song, Peace Wins The Election. <br /><br />As you read further, you will find that there is a way you can support Maria and Paul&rsquo;s great causes with your own personal touch and contribution of community spirit. No monetary requirement will be asked of you. We would like to ask for about 4 minutes of your time and written thoughts. <br /><br />Maria Daines and Paul Killington, of Cambridgeshire, U.K. are pleased to announce the official release of their song Peace Wins The Election as a video on their own You Tube channel. </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/rockinfortheplanet" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small; color: #006699;">www.youtube.com/rockinfortheplanet</span></a><span style="font-size: small;"> <br /><br />This video release is an important opportunity for those that have a You Tube account to be able to demonstrate the power of community. If you do not have a You Tube account and want to participate, signing up for an account is free and easy to do. </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/signup?next=/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small; color: #006699;">http://www.youtube.com/signup?next=/</span></a><span style="font-size: small;"> <br /><br />For the months of December 2008 and January 2009, comments that are written by individuals about the song, video, or any issues that are relevant to the content on the videos you tube page will have $1.00 Canadian funds per comment donated on your behalf by the team of Keep The Green Alive to aid in the release of Maria Daines and Paul Killington&rsquo;s new animal welfare CD called, Shelter Me the distribution of this CD shall aid in helping under represented not-for-profit animal shelters. <br /><br />The funds will be donated to Maria and Paul by the team of, Keep The Green Alive to a maximum of $1,000.00 Canadian Funds for comments written on the video page of, Peace Wins The Election at You Tube <br /><br />The only rule here is, that comments must be posted by different people. i.e.: You can comment as many times as you would like, however it is the You Tube account name that appears that shall represent $1.00 Cdn. Funds donated on your behalf by the team of Keep The Green Alive to Maria Daines and Paul Killington&rsquo;s new animal welfare CD, Shelter Me. <br /><br />In essence, we are trying to be able to obtain 1,000 comments from 1,000 different people until midnight eastern standard time January 31st 2009. <br /><br />All monies earned via this community event shall be directly applied by Maria Daines and Paul Killington to this amazing project of love and care through their music and voice on behalf of those less fortunate animals and care givers. <br /><br />To view Maria Daines and Paul Killington&rsquo;s video of their song, Peace Wins The Election, and to be able to donate by leaving your comment, please visit; <br /><br /></span><a href=&quotPeace wins the Election; target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small; color: #006699;">www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAmSiPZcPKo</span></a><span style="font-size: small;"> <br /><br />Thank you to all that participate and share. We appreciate your efforts, and community spirit. <br /><br />Peace</span></span>

Greg Allen, Major Project: Regeneration of dying forests for future generations. (Pyrolysis)

The following is a report of Greg Allen's want for a major project to be developed that will create the regeneration of the Boreal Forests in such a way as to be of healthy benefit for the planet and aid humanity in its quest for alternative fuels and healthy environments.

According to Greg, the Boreal Forests in British Columbia, and, Alberta, Canada, are dying due to infestation of the Mountain Pine Beetle.

In Greg's own words, he states, "Due to climate change, and a rise in temperature, there no longer exists a cycle of deep freezing in the winter in the Boreal Forests. The reproduction of the Mountain Pine Beetle outside its natural reproductive cycle allows these insects to reproduce continually and in turn cause the Boreal Forests to die en masse via their natural reproduction and feeding cycles. What is left behind are dead standing trees and an abundance of pine needles left as dry combustible energy which fuels forest fires."

To learn more about the Mountain Pine Beetle and the Boreal Forests that are being destroyed, please refer to this Parks Canada website link:  

Greg continues as thus, "These trees that are being harvested by humans, are distressed and full of beetle holes, and are somewhat of little value to the end user consumer."

The prospects of Greg's want of a major project to regenerate these forests exist at this time, and shall benefit the environment, the forests, and ultimately, humans in their quest for survival now, and, in the future.

The concept of regenerating the Boreal Forests in Greg’s mind, would include the following:

"The proposition would be, to incorporate the activity of, Pyrolysis. (  ) Which essentially is to convert the remains of these desecrated pine trees into bio fuels and agrichar. This process is a heating of the wood to the point that volatiles boil off and are retained, then condensed for the purpose of generating bio fuels. Simply put, these burned off volatiles are equivalent to petroleum products that can be consumed with little to no danger to our atmosphere through its processing and combustion. The major by-product of this process in turn creates what is known as Agrichar. (  ) Agrichar is nutrient rich charcoal residue that can be put back into the land to rebuild healthy soils. Improving the soil will give way to further storage of CO2 in the form of carbon. Utilizing the system of Pyrolysis would allow for keeping the carbon in the soil instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. This plan, ultimately, will compliment an overall project to regenerate the Boreal Forest to the point that it could survive in the altered climate regime."

As Greg puts it, " Pyrolysis captures energy content and provides materials to replace fossil fuels"

At this time, a myriad of projects and science are at work in this field to help combat the destruction of the Boreal Forests. Greg's want for an expansion of these projects is to create the least impact on the environment, while at the same time, giving humans a chance to continue to progress in an effective and gentle manner toward our sustainability as a global community relying less and less on non renewable energy resources.

Greg points us to a company that is already producing Bio Char in Guelph, Ontario Canada, called, Agri-THERM.

Greg wishes to thank all those that are interested in helping to implement these projects, and those that share great concern for our generation, and, all the generations of humanity that shall follow in our footprints.

Thank you to Greg Allen for speaking with me via telephone about his want of this Major Project to continue to develop and be instituted at all levels of community involvement.      

Reflecting on the past....

Dear friends,

Our great friend and supporter Maria Daines wrote the song, Peace Wins The Election, back in November 2005. Here is a link to be able to listen to and/or download Peace Wins The Election for your listening pleasure and edification.

http://www.mixposure.com/zest-radio-show/audio/5163/peace-wins-the-election-by-maria-daines

For complete details regarding the song, Peace Wins The Election, please visit, http://www.maria-daines.com/music-5.html

 

Thank you to Maria Daines and Paul Killington for their great support and friendship to millions of people around the world.

Peace,

Paul

Midnight eastern standard time, January 31 2009

 

Dear Maria Daines, Paul Killington, and all that have participated in this peaceful initiative to aid in saving lives through the music of  Maria Daines and Paul Killington and their next animal welfare CD, Shelter Me.

 

We want to extend our deep gratitude to each and every one of you that participated through leaving comments and sharing this initiative with your communities.

 

Our goal at the team of Keep The Green Alive was to bring people together in a positive common cause with the hope that 1,000 different people would leave 1,000 comments so we could donate the full $1,000.00 Cdn. Funds to Maria and Paul on your behalf toward the first 500 pressings of their CD, Shelter Me.

 

At this time, midnight eastern standard time, January 31 2009, there are 409 individuals that have shown the power of community through standing up and being counted in for the long haul. The demonstration of this community has humbled us with your amazing participation and comments. Whether it was a word or two, a sentence, or even a paragraph written here, the feeling of hope and encouragement reined supreme and still does!

 

The theme of hope is what we are all striving towards in wanting to have a better future for us all, humans, animals, sea life and plant life alike. Some comments here specifically resonate with a hope that Maria and Paul will reach their goal in this worthy cause.

 

In my discussions with Greg Allen about the awarding of the donations in kind, we are happy to be able to give Maria and Paul $409.00 Canadian funds toward their CD. However, we also decided, that due to the amazing show of community support here, we will be awarding the full $1,000.00 Canadian funds to Maria and Paul with honour and pleasure.

 

On behalf of Paul Richmond, Greg Allen, the team of Keep The Green Alive, and, the 409 participants in creating the gift of giving through leaving comments on the Peace Wins The Election video, we are very happy to be able to give Maria Daines and Paul Killington $1,000.00 Canadian funds to put towards the pressing and release of the first 500 copies of your animal welfare CD, Shelter Me.

 

Thank you all for your absolutely amazing support and community spirit. We remain your friends, Paul D. Richmond, Greg Allen and the team of, Keep The Green Alive !!!!

 

P.S. If you have ever wondered whom the team of Keep The Green Alive is, well, it’s all of us…peace…