Abhishek is an avid Environmentalist and he has got some great Alternative Fuel Secrets up his sleeves! Download his FREE 70 Pages Ebook, "Energy Conservation And Alternative Fuel" from his website http://www.Wonder-Homes.com/643/index.htm . Only limited Free Copies available.
Article Source

Wind Turbine Generators.

I grew up just north of the Mississippi Gulf Coast and N.E. Of New Orleans. It meant the world to me and still means a great deal (Though I have lived in Arkansas for 11 years, I still have many friends…and family there); and my family of origin has been there four decades.

Before reaching a definite conclusion, I had to consider the following. B.P has consistently been one of the top-ten largest oil firms in the world, along with Shell, Exxon, Conoco/Phillips et al. But bigger is not always better. Whereas ALL of BP's competitors have had ten or less safety violations per year for several decades, BP has consistently violated those rules and had 250+ violations annually, putting lives, ways of life, wildlife, and economies at risk in pursuit of big money.

This time, in a flash, they snuffed out the lives of eleven men, (and two more died later in the clean-up), ruined countless 2-3 generation family businesses, the entire ecosystem, and with oil and dispersant everywhere, it is not if, it is WHEN a hurricane comes, will we will all see the scope of the damage done. Those tar-balls won't be sitting on the beach any longer. The oil will not be floating around only in the ocean. It will be in our schools, businesses, and homes, on our land-raised food, etc. 1.5 million gallons of dispersant has been used.  For whatever reason, BP chose one of the most toxic kinds. There are some that are harmless to the environment. They chose not to use those. The dispersant used stays on the ocean floor forever and is  a chemical toxin, many say much worse than the oil!

Anyone who has lived on or near the coast knows, a hurricane or major tropical storm WILL happen. It will be interesting to hear the feelings of those who are sure BP is our economic saving grace when the oil starts heading into the inland.

You may remember awhile back, under Florida's Republican Governor Jeb Bush, a very tough decision was made. Did Florida want offshore drilling or pristine beaches, fishing, wildlife,and a booming tourism economy, offshore drilling, or both? It wisely decided on the former.

There  remains no Florida offshore drilling, though they are seeing the results of what can happen when  an out-of-control corporation such as BP.

As I write this, there is a tropical storm forming in the Caribbean moving towards the Gulf.Again, we know this can turn easily into a hurricane, and, even if it stays a tropical storm, itwill bring much of what is in and on the ocean onto land, sometimes way beyond the Coast itself.

Did it ever occur to anyone that even if deep-water drilling returns, and BP is banned, thatany of the other top six, with near-pristine safety records, could easily take over and do it right after the clean up (though I would prefer to see no deep water drilling at all until all the snags are worked out).

We saw a BP spokesman on the news yesterday use the tired old analogy, "When an airplane crashes, they don't outlaw flying". Well that's a tired old analogy for a reason. It's not exactly true.  When airlines such as Eastern and several others had such consistently poor safety records and crashes that it finally did not have the money to safely fix, as large as the firm was, it

eventually  folded or would have been violating more and more. They, unlike BP, knew the right thing to do before more destruction and deaths happened.

Did the airline industry suffer from that.  It did just the opposite. It learned from Eastern and others errors and, though it has never been that profitable except for a few airlines, improved its safety record dramatically.

My wife Lee brought up another really interesting issue. If deep water drilling (which is only10%  of ocean drilling) SOOO important for Louisiana, why is it that there is so much poverty there?  In Alaska for instance, every citizen is given a stipend for giving the opportunity of oil companies to drill. Surely much of Louisiana does not live in poverty, but given "just how important oil is for it to flourish", the track record is pretty bad. I see MANY more people in Louisiana getting benefits from technology, banking, arts, etc than oil.

I see a few oil fat cats taking in the cash from deep water drilling. Keep in mind only 30 or soof the 300 offshore La wells are deep-water.

The topic of offshore drilling came up again (in Florida), (not just  deep-water but ALL offshore drilling) under another Republican Florida Governor  Charlie Crist. He also, saw no benefits to the state and the state remains a flourishing  tourism and wildlife reserve.

I guess if I still lived and worked near the coast, it would be too easy to buy into BP's nonstop "Good-guy" PR campaign. It is nonstop and it seems to be effective.I know how easy it is to "overlook a problem or issue if it is nearby". It is human nature to "go into denial". But if one "who has been there", but now can see it from a distance, a new perspective, the whole issue becomes more clear.

One can see through the BP ad campaign's  thin-veneer. It is smoke and mirrors and very expensive. All those millions of TV dollars  could and should go to small business owners, wildlife refugees, out of work oil workers, etc., but no.

It is going to put on a happy face. Sorry BP. We have more than a junior high education; mos tof us, and we don't buy it. Any of it. Thank you for trying. Please stop while you are way behind, and let another oil company do the job.

I used to (try) to work in the entertainment industry. I had a few successes but many more failures than successes. Though it was an ego-blow to pack up my bags and leave NYC (and L.A.), I did so. Now I write songs, cartoons, articles, etc., am married, and very happy. When I left the exciting field of "showbiz", I had no idea what would happen next, but as  it turned out, it was better for me and everyone involved. Can't you do the same, BP with our oceans? You've had successes, but LOOK AT THIS FAILURE!!!!!

As far as us, victims of BP, this may be a real wake-up call. The alternative energy is out there.It is not expensive, and it is easy to convert. For years I have talked about "we should…" and"wouldn't  it be nice if…?" In other words I could talk the talk very well. Perhaps it is also time for ME to  look within and walk the walk; by actually using such alternative fuels. I can't change BP.

I  can write articles and songs that hopefully raise awareness. I can change me, and that means taking this issue seriously, very seriously, as I can see the horrendous damage this has done.

-
About the Author:
Rick London si a writer and cartoonist and founder of Londons Times Cartoons, the #1 Google ranked offbeat cartoon on the net and many licnesed cartoon gift including funny cow tees, mugs, aprons, totes, caps and much more.
Article Source

Wind Turbine Generators.

Why Would Someone Buy An Alternative-Fuel Powered Vehicle?
By Mark Allen

It seems that whether it's a movie star talking about their new electric-gas hybrid car or a politician proclaiming the virtues of biodiesel, alternative-fuel powered vehicles are all the rage right now. There are many claims about these vehicles ranging from astounding miles per gallon (mpg) to the peace of mind it gives the driver, but why should someone buy an alternative-fuel powered vehicle?

Many alt-fuel vehicle owners speak of the financial benefits of owning such a vehicle. It is true that you can save money on your monthly fuel bill, depending on what choice of alt-fuel vehicle you drive. Because of the relatively new technology involved, many alt-fuels are just as expensive as or more expensive than traditional petroleum based fuels. It seems that the most money saving option is an electric-hybrid engine, but you usually end up paying more upfront for these as the cost for an electric-hybrid car is greater from the dealership than a standard car.

Another reason some drivers choose so-called "green" cars is because of their positive effect on the environment. The thinking is that if the emissions released by the car are cleaner, then it is more environmentally friendly to drive it than a standard engine. Without a doubt this is true for almost all forms of alternative fuel. Still, attention has to be paid to the fuel manufacturing and consumption process as a whole. There is scientific evidence that the current method of extracting hydrogen from natural gas can create far worse emissions than extraction from petroleum.

Developing new technology, such as alternative-fuel use, costs a great deal of money. Some alt-fuel vehicle drivers purchase their vehicles so that they feel they have helped an industry they believe in. By infusing money into the industry via the purchase of the vehicle itself, additional options, and the fuel supply needed they are contributing to the further development of that technology.

Drivers have also been known to turn to alternative-fuel vehicles as a way of helping or encouraging their country to eliminate its need of foreign oil. Many people feel that western countries have become dangerously dependent on oil producing nations. At a time when wars have been fought over, among other things, the protection of oil interests, some citizens have been looking for a way to make their country more able to support itself. When a country is not completely dependent on it's trading partner, it has the advantage when it comes to international trading.

There will always be a certain segment of society that likes to do the "in" thing. They were the first ones to wear bell-bottom pants in the 1970's, Members Only jackets in the 1980's, and baggy pants in the 1990's. There will also always be people who want the newest "toy" or technology because it's a status symbol, especially when it's something being used by celebrities. Alternative-fuel vehicles definitely are no exception to this market. Whether these buyers continue to own alt-fuel cars after the fad have passed on or it's no longer a status symbol is anyone's guess.

Similar to the people trying to reduce their country's dependency on foreign oil are a group of people, whose main reason for owning alternative-fuel vehicles is to support the agricultural industry in their own country. This would mainly include the alternative fuels known to as Biodiesel and Ethanol. Both Biodiesel and Ethanol are somewhat made from vegetable oil. Usually for a car to run on Biodiesel or Ethanol there has to be some minor modifications done to the engine. If the Biodiesel is made from used vegetable oil, then it has to be refined first to clear it of impurities.

Many people buy many different types of alternative-fuel vehicles for many different reasons. These people don't as a group even agree on the reasons they do this, but they are united by their actions and they are encouraging the entire alternative-fuel industry to develop faster than if it was just developing on it's own.
About The Author

Mark Allen is an avid supporter of the search for a viable alternative fuel source. More information at: BiodieselPlans

Tags: low speed wind turbine, small wind turbines, Turbine, wind turbine diagrams

Wind Turbine Generators.

The Romans and Greeks built illustrious temples to various Gods not only as places of awe-inspiring worship but also to collect money from tourists and pilgrims. The cult was necessary to keep the illiterate peasants awed, taxes high, and money in the government's coffers. In our times the Vatican and Mecca are exemplars of such a policy but they are dwarfed by the massive industry and copious subsidization which exists around the earth-cult.

Cult members which benefit from eco-cult scare tactics include inter-alia: government ministries; regulators; firms in regulated markets that want hand-outs and to limit competition; ethanol producers who are mostly huge agri-businesses in politically sensitive areas; solar and wind power developers; climate change activists who live off government hand-outs; and the myriad numbers of lobby groups which make a living arm-twisting politicians with fake polls.

Poll question: Do you believe that a green planet is good for your children's, children's future? [answer meekly, yes]. Next question: If it is than don't you support government action on alternative fuel technology or are you a fascist-capitalist-racist-baby eating immoral polluter? [answer meekly and apologetically of course I support government action].

It is depressing that the sewer of environmental activism has not had some light shed on it by the media.

Why is Oil king?

King oil reigns because it is cheaper; more energy efficient [yes it is]; and simpler to distribute to real people in the real world, then the fantasy technologies of ?alternative energy?. There is lots of oil left in the world ? about 300 years at current levels of consumption ? but newer oil resources must run the gamut of eco-fascist activism, hostility and over-regulation, not to mention constraints on distribution and refining capacity. Only about 15 % of US oil supply for example comes from the Middle East. There is enough oil reserves that are not yet drilled sitting within the Continental US to eliminate Persian gulf oil imports. But oil firms can't drill and refine these reserves thanks to the eco-fascists that dominate politics.

What about all the chatter that alternative energy is cheaper and cleaner? Only nuclear power and cleaning burning coal provide clean burning alternatives to oil, but the media and the chattering elite focus of course on ?alternative? sources meaning everything but nuclear power, coal and reality. So what about these pristine and wonderful ?other sources??

It is hogwash. Lots of studies now exist which seriously question the benefits of: ethanol cars; wind turbines; and fuel-cell batteries. Not only are these ?alternative? sources of energy expensive to produce they also destroy the environment ? something apparently the earth-goddess cult is deeply concerned about [tears rolling down cheeks].

Take ethanol. Serious academics are starting to question whether the environmental benefits of ethanol are all they are cracked up to be. A recent academic study from Cornell University calculates that ethanol uses up 70 per cent more energy in its production than the energy that is left in it. Not a smart return on energy investment one could say. Great swathes of farmland would need to be used to convert enough plant biomass including corn, or soya into ethanol. Doesn't the earth cult whine about farmland and ?green spaces??

Waste production from making ethanol is immense and would need to be treated, stored or reused somehow. All of this would power up the pricing of ethanol fuel. The average American car, for one year, would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. The price per liter or gallon would be double or triple what you now pay. Your car's speed and distance traveled would be halved. Are you willing to pay a higher price for worse performance? If yes congratulations, you are a certified die-hard member of the eco-cult team. Personally I have no interest in higher prices for worse performance.

Look at wind turbines. A good example of wind-turbine nonsense is what British-Dutch developer Infinergy/LZN plans to build in the UK - 22 wind turbines, up to 410 feet high with wonderful promises of energy output, saving the world and the usual litany of eco-nonsense. Yet experts commissioned by locals who are against the project believe that the developer's environmental plans exaggerate the carbon-saving benefits by up to 150 per cent; fail to provide critical wind-speed data [turbines lie idle most of the time]; contain misleading figures on electricity output; and lie about the number of birds killed by the turbines in any given year.

None of their concerns have or were refuted by either the government [which pays for the project] or LZN. This wind project is typical of the eco-nonsense one can see across the world. Heavily subsidized, not that eco-friendly, not that beneficial, not that logical, but hey we must do it! This is what the eco-club wants ? no debate, no questionings, and no real science. Just march in lock step and raise your arms in the eco-cult salute, look to the eco-fuehrer for salvation and just obey.

The main beneficiaries of the eco-scam regarding alternative fuels are big-business; politicians and the political groups that gain power. In the US the special lobby interests that push for eco-nonsense are extremely well funded and powerful. One group, the Apollo Alliance, has pressured both US parties to spend up to $300 billion in recent years on subsidizing farmers [ie. ethanol production] most of which is given to huge agri-businesses who in turn kick back huge sums into political campaigns. If you are a US politician you can't annoy the Agro-lobby.

It is not a spiritual conversion that forced British Petroleum to become Beyond Petroleum and waste billions in share-holder wealth buying off green activists with dumb investments in ethanol and other alternative fuels. It was conversion to buy peace; appear ?green?; and re-brand themselves as likeable, lovable tree hugging types, whose business is only run for the benefit of the wonderful children they show on their TV adverts. BP like many other firms of course demands government subsidies to pay for their investments in ridiculous schemes of fantasy. In other words big business wants the little consumer and taxpayer to pay the costs of their alternative fuel fantasy. How tear-jerking.

As with most social dislocations the problem is with government. Governments lie, distort and conform to behind the scenes political pressure. Scare tactics, death cults, subsidies, pay-offs, kick-backs, trade-offs, all masked by dire doom and gloom scenarios emanate from the government and their various political-business allies who salivate at the idea of money, more power, and reduced competition.

Let's repeat a fact: only 15% of US oil comes from the Persian Gulf. The US could stop sending money overseas within 5 years if the Americans decided to get serious about the problem. But in place of hard reality big spending Bush and friends along with Democrats in the pockets of special interest groups prefer rhetoric, handing out cash, and creating fear through eco-doom and gloom. If the US wants to stop sending money to Islamic fascist and terror regimes they could. But the Arab and eco-lobbies will not allow it.

At some point in the future maybe some fuels will replace oil. But if it happens it should happen in transparent, open and non-subsidized markets. We don't need government's beholden to special interest groups, interested in poll numbers and intent on buying votes, to decide what is a good alternative to oil. The market will decide that. Allowing politicians and their lobby friends to set the agenda is the sure path to fiscal ruin and inefficient energy usage. Show me one government run and subsidized market that works [pause? waiting? waiting?]. I thought so. So then why do you support the eco-nonsense around? alternative energy?

- nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/reynolds200505270855.asp

-Alan Reynolds with the Cato Institute.

-Sheldon Richman senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of 'tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State?, and editor of The Freeman magazine.