For a confluence of good reasons, people even in the US seem to finally be coming around to the concept that energy conservation is a good idea. Terrorism and the war in Iraq have brought home the notion that the US rate of energy consumption is pumping money into the hands of individuals who certainly do not have the best interests of the US at heart. Changing weather patterns have been blamed for the brutal 2005 hurricane season that brought hurricane Katrina, and the increased incidence of severe weather is also thought to be at least partly dependent on human activity-induced global climate change. Now that the nay-sayers are losing ground in the national debate, the question shifts from "Is there a problem?" to "What can we do to fix it?" Our neighbors to the North have passed an interesting measure that could have large ramifications for energy consumption, and might offer a model that the US could follow for doing the same. Starting in 2012 incandescent lights will no longer be sold in Ontario, following in the footsteps of Australia, which passed a similar measure earlier this year.

While they're cheap, easy to use and output light that is often consider softer and less harsh than fluorescent alternatives, incandescent bulbs are significantly less efficient than the increasingly marketed Compact Fluoresent bulbs, since incandescence technology converts much more of the electricity used by the bulb into wasted heat than fluorescent bulbs. A 60W incandescent bulb puts out the same amount of light as a 15W fluorescent bulb, so energy savings add up quickly if alternative lighting technologies are adapted. In addition, the development of cheap LED lighting technology may provide an even more efficient alternative to fluorescent lighting, as LEDs convert even less of the energy used to power them into heat. They also do not require mercury vapor to function like fluorescent bulbs do, and some would pose less of a pollution hazard if adopted on a large scale.

With Australia and Canada taking the initiative to improve lighting efficiency, would the US be willing to follow? Free market devotees tend to take a less-than-favorable outlook on government mandated changes to the business environment, instead preferring to believe that a superior product will dominate the market based on its own merits (though proponents of the Linux OS or the Tucker Torpedo might disagree.) US regulators tend to at least pay lip service to free market ideology, so it seems unlikely that any such far reaching legislation will be enacted in the world's largest energy consumer. However, tax incentives and state initiatives to accomplish the same thing are sure to come. And US consumers will be able to ride of the coattails of countries like Canada and Australia; currently a complaint about non-incandescent light bulbs is their higher cost, but with forced markets arising in other countries, manufacturing efficiency should increase and bring the cost of these products down, which will hopefully reach consumers around the world, not just in countries where these bulbs are mandated.

Regardless of how the change happens, the sooner it does, the better. The colossal waste of energy caused by widespread use of incandescent bulbs versus more efficient ones is a major contributor to a variety of environmental woes, so an improvement in in lighting efficiency will benefit the entire planet.

The Peak Oil theory (also called "Hubbert's Peak Theory" holds that the world will soon run out of oil, and subsequently face a global catastrophe of nearly unimaginable proportions.

But will it?

These guys think so (and they'll sell you a $189.00 solar oven to prove how *cough* earnest they are.) But a recent report from a group called CERA begs to differ. According to their executive summary page, it's not that oil won't run out eventually, it's just that it won't happen at the rapturetastic rate so beloved of wingnutty apocolypseophiles of every political stripe.

There's an interesting comparison to be made between peak oil and 1970's paranoid predictions of a Malthusian population explosion catastrophe. Those predictions (according to some thinkers) are precisely backwards, and the real problem will be underpopulation. Of course, even those models fail to take into account the possibility of medically increased lifespans.

Bottom line? It's hard to tell the future, peakoilophiles.

Apparently, it's also expensive, because if you actually want to read CERA's report, you'll have to fork over a cool $1000 smackers, US.

It's all an Illuminati conspiracy. I'm going to go hide under my bed just in case any of these nutjobs is right.

Hat tip Ray Kurzweil's site

Someone in the Bush administration apparently woke up on the right side of the bed yesterday, feeling good despite the environmental hangover any netrual observer would have expected. Not only has the decision been made that the EPA is A-OK and thus all funding for it can take a major slash with little worry about environmental damage, but apparently geothermal and hydroelectric energy are ready to take over all major US power generation, and so we can merrily cut funding for their further development because they're ready to go.

It's true that research has been ongoing for developing these sorts of technologies for decades, and they have come a long way in that time - though still only represent a minor fraction of the total US generating capacity when compared with polluters like coal, natural gas and nuclear power (until someone comes up with a safe and reliable way to dispose of nuclear waste I'm going to continue classifying it as polluting despite its lack of carbon emissions.) Both geothermal and hydroelectric power have significant factors that make them more attractive to Americans: they're environmentally sounder (though some recent critics have begun to complain about the impact of widespread dams on marine ecosystems) with minimal emissions, and they do not rely on the import of petroleum based products, many of which come from countries hostile to US interests.

The real problem with leaving them in the hands of the free market is that the market really only relies on a single factor to determine efficacy: cost. According to the the DOE's own analysis a modern geothermal power plant is going to bottom out at about five cents per kilowatt-hour. Which, while a good bit below average costs paid by the consumer, is still more than twice what petroleum or nuclear based power generation costs, and four to five times hydroelectric power. Of course, it's unclear whether those estimates include the costs of periodically invading and rebuilding foreign countries in order to ensure a constant supply of petroleum. So while there may be a market niche for geothermal power generation, given the choice between that and cheaper forms, the market will likely stick with the greater profit margin, since national security and environmental impact can only become tangible market forces through government intervention or consumer choice, and even with the limited deregulation of many local power markets consumers are still often limited in what types of power they may choose to pay for.

So it becomes a question of economics. Is it better for the US to continue subsidizing research to develop geothermal energy (hydroelectric seems to be on better footing - though the initial investment of setting up water based generating plants may constitute an insurmountable barrier to investors) or leave it up to the market, which could potentially abandon it in favor of cheaper alternatives with more long term issues. With the current administration it's a no-brainer, environment and national security be damned, if it involves cutting off a government service that some conservatives will inevitably label as a "handout" then it will get done.

There's nothing wrong with developing a technology to the point where it can become viable in the open market and then cutting it loose. Hydroelectric power generation may actually be at this point. But geothermal, while making strides, still has a long way to go, and abandoning this potentially promising technology by letting businesspeople make decisions with repercussions that affect the whole country seems like a bad idea.

If all goes well, soon the state of New Mexico will have a Blinky to call their own. For the first time in 30 years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a license for a commercial nuclear facility to be built. Louisiana Energy Services will build what will be the nation's first private fuel source for commercial nuclear power plants. After reviewing plans for the past 2-½ years, construction on the $1.5 billion dollar facility could begin in early August and the plant could be ready to sell enriched uranium by 2009.

Last month, federal officials cleared one of the last legal hurdles -- questions about waste disposal. But critics believe the plant will pollute the environment, guzzle scarce water and leave the nearby town of Eunice with tons of radioactive waste and nowhere to put it. Disposal costs could leave New Mexico stuck with the project's nuclear waste. The plant will generate a form of waste that no U.S. disposal site can handle, and no U.S. processing facility exists that can convert the waste into lower-level radioactive material. The plant could run at full capacity for eight to 10 years before running out of on-site space for the material. But the NRC ruled uncertainties over waste disposal costs are irrelevant because Louisiana Energy Services agreement with New Mexico calls for hundreds of millions of dollars to be set aside for waste disposal.

Republican Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, who is deeply in love with nuclear power, said the license is important,

The Centers for Disease control estimates nearly two-thirds of adults in the United States are overweight and the problem is increasing. . As fast food restaurants and fat filled Starbucks pop up on every corner, Americans just get wider and wider. The number one plastic surgery in the US is now liposuction, which is a healthy and delightful replacement for exercise.

The good news is only one out of every five American children is overweight due to sugary snacks like sodas and high-fat diets as well as the copious amount of time they spend in front of the television and video games. Turns out it is difficult to burn calories while you are playing Halo. Enjoy your diabetes, Billy. The solution to our nations husky problem is obvious and simple:We must rebuild our cities so people walk instead of drive. Shouldn’t take long.

But a new horror is waiting on the horizon. Our automobiles may become fatter than we are. Currently Brazil produces ethanol made from sugar cane and it is considered to be very successful. But Brazilians and their autos are just plain sexier than Americans and it is very hot. Our cars don’t have the same advantage. Also, sugar is much cheaper in Brazil than in the United States, so the economics of sugar-based ethanol might not work in America.

Currently sugar in the U.S. is made from two sources: beets in some northern and western states, and cane in a few southern states, as well as Hawaii. Chubby farmers who don’t put stairs in their fields most probably grow it. There is skepticism among some sugar growers that ethanol from sugar will ever work, as they believe the food value is better for sugar. Another concern is that Americans may pull over on roads and start sucking on their exhaust pipes, which would burn their lips.