Green energy refers to the use of power that is not only more efficient than fossil fuel but that is friendly to the environment as well. Green energy is generally defined as energy sources that dont pollute and are renewable.

There are several categories of green energy. They are anaerobic digestion, wind power, geothermal power, hydropower on a small scale, biomass power, solar power and wave power. Waste incineration can even be a source of green energy.

Nuclear power plants claim that they produce green energy as well, though this source is fraught with controversy, as we all know. While nuclear energy may be sustainable, may be considered renewable and does not pollute the atmosphere while it is producing energy, its waste does pollute the biosphere as it is released.

The transport, mining and phases before and after production of nuclear energy does produce and release carbon dioxide and similar destructive greenhouse gases. When we read of green energy, therefore, we rarely see nuclear power included.

Those who support nuclear energy say that nuclear waste is not, in fact, released into our earths biosphere during its normal production cycle. They stress as well that the carbon dioxide that nuclear energy production releases is comparable, in terms of each kilowatt hour of electricity, to such sources of green energy as wind power.

As an example of the green energy production the average wind turbine, such as the one in Reading England, can produce enough energy daily to be the only energy source for 1000 households.

Many countries now offer household and commercial consumers to opt for total use of green energy. They do this one of two ways. Consumers can buy their electricity from a company that only uses renewable green energy technology, or they can buy from their general supplies such as the local utility company who then buys from green energy resources only as much of a supply as consumers pay for.

The latter is generally a more cost – efficient way of supplying a home or office with green energy, as the supplier can reap the economic benefits of a mass purchase. Green energy generally costs more per kilowatt hour than standard fossil fuel energy.

Consumers can also purchase green energy certificates, which are alternately referred to as green tags or green certificates. These are available in both Europe and the United States, and are the most convenient method for the average consumer to support green energy. More than 35 million European households and one million American households now buy these green energy certificates.

While green energy is a great step in the direction of keeping our environment healthy and our air as pollutant free as possible, it must be noted that no matter what the energy, it will negatively impact the environment to some extent.

Every energy source, green or otherwise, requires energy. The production of this energy will create pollution during its manufacture. Green energys impact is minimal, however.

Approximately ten percent of energy produced in the United States is from hydropower. In this process, water spins in turbines in generators.

Hydropower is one of the renewable energy sources being researched and implemented to replace fossil fuels, which are in the process of depletion. It does not produce carbon dioxide, as coal power stations do, making it a cleaner, as well as, cheaper alternate way to produce electricity. It is also renewable, with the help of rainwater for replenishment.

The impoundment facility is the most common type of hydropower facilities. A dam is built on a large river or lake to store its water in a reservoir. When water is released from the reservoir through tunnels it flows through a turbine. Since the height of the water behind the walls is so great, the released water goes through the turbine with a great force of energy. As the turbine spins, it sets in motion a generator, which in turn produces electricity. The water then travels back into the stream or river below. Networks of transmission lines and facilities carry the electricity from the generator to users in a form they can use. The Hoover Dam is an illustration of the process just described. When it was initially built, it produced enough electricity for the entire city of Las Vegas. As Las Vegas grew, they turned to other energy sources

The pumped storage hydro plant facility is able to store power. It does so by pumping water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir during low energy demand periods. When needs increase, the water is released from the upper reservoir back to the lower reservoir for electricity generation.

Hydroelectric plants require a lot of land in order to build a dam and reservoir. This requires a great deal of money, time and construction. There are not many ideal places to put them and most of these have already been taken. The good thing is once constructed; the electricity is free to produce. Due to costs, the tendency will be to put up smaller hydro plants that are more economical.

Hydroelectric plants using dams have a negative effect on the environment. Through the construction of a dam, there is a blockage of the flow from upstream to downstream. This disrupts the migration pattern of fish. Fish can also be killed passing through the turbines. An advantage to hydropower is the ability to control energy release to meet changing demands.

The population is growing and so will its power needs. Fossil fuels are being used up and there will come a time when they will be depleted. We need to turn to renewable energy sources to meet our needs. Natural resources seem to be a natural solution. Hydroelectric plants can meet our power needs without worries of depletion or pollution. It is also the most reliable source available today. Research and development is ongoing to provide a solution to the damage a dam can do. The potential for hydroelectricity is within our grasp and we must find a way to make this work.

Carbon offsetting – what is it?

Carbon offsetting is the process in which a person reduces Carbon emissions by paying a reputable environmental organization to plant trees in your place, thus reducing YOUR carbon footprint on the world. Businesses and people alike are encouraged to repent their destructive emissions to achieve a carbon neutral status. Offsetting your carbon also allows an individual to tell friends and family that they actually take action against global warming.

Reforestation is most commonly associated with Carbon offsetting, but the promotion of alternative energy also reduces overall CO2 emissions. Everyone contributes Carbon into the atmosphere. Everyday tasks such as boiling a kettle, reading your e-mail, and driving to work all generate Carbon, a major component of global warming. In order to combat a growth in Carbon emissions people are encouraged to offset what they can’t reduce themselves. If this is done, and done properly, environmentalists believe that the dangers global warming can be averted.

Although the efficiency of Carbon offsetting has been debated, it is clear that reputable organizations working in an honest fashion can make a difference. It is impossible to immediately transition from a fossil fuel dependent society to a cleaner ethanol based society over night, thus it is important to promote the use of cleaner energy.

Environmental organizations such as CO2Debt.com work closely with other ecologically conscience groups to steer away from the use of unclean fossil fuels.

In 2000 a new US administration drafted a new energy plan. Two oilmen, with secret advice of the oil industry, orchestrated and supervised the plan. The results have been devastating. Gas and oil prices have escalated to more than $4 per gallon and are forecast to hit $5 per gallon soon.

The problems our oilmen were trying to solve, were not of their doing. Their decision, to solve the energy puzzle, was laudable. Regrettably, they were not equipped to handle the consequences of their actions.

In November 2008 the US is reaching another milestone in history. A new president and a new Congress will be elected. Energy is becoming one of the main issues of the hotly contested election campaign. We already know one outcome for sure. Neither candidate has any idea about the seriousness of the energy problems confronting our country and the world.

The US needs swift and effective actions to stabilize world energy prices, to introduce measures for dealing with global warming and climate change, and to turn around an economy that has been looted by its financial sector. How can the US take the lead in fighting global warming? How can the US send the right signals to the rest of the world? How can the US convince the owners of the world’s oil reserves that coercive price fixing is breeding resentment?

The US does not possess a single weapon to force its intentions upon others. It can do so only by the quality of her ideas.

Owners of coal, petroleum, and natural gas reserves will only change, if they have to face risks. These new risks could be:

The near-future threat of a low priced petroleum substitute,

The threat of subsidized renewable energies for the generation of low cost electricity,

The threat of a treaty that will outlaw fossil fuel burning across the world.

When these threats become reality, we will see a rush to sell as many energy reserves as quickly as possible.

Without these threats the decision process is much simpler. Sell as little energy as possible and wait for prices to rise. The longer you wait, the more money you make.

Obviously, it will take time to convert fossil fuel fired power plants to plants that are powered by renewable energies like solar power, hydropower, wind power, marine power, geothermal heat, and nuclear heat. Obviously, it will take time to produce the first barrel of a high quality petroleum substitute from fast growing plants that have no resemblance to food crops and can be grown on arid lands. Obviously, it will take even longer to convince 200 countries to sign a treaty that forbids the use of fossil fuels. But what choices do the US and the world have? We cannot continue and emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases much longer. The environmental costs are beginning to escalate. Citizens across the world will demand actions from governments.

Countries with large coastal areas are already experiencing the accelerating rise of ocean levels. This rise will speed up in lockstep with greenhouse gas emissions. Once carbon dioxide, the major product of fossil fuel combustion, enters the atmosphere, it cannot be recaptured. The accumulation of carbon dioxide is irreversible and the accelerated melting of glaciers on mountains and of ice sheets in the Polar Regions is unstoppable.

Therefore, we must halt atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases. Temporarily, we can sequester about one third of all fossil fuel generated emissions. The carbon dioxide emitted by large smokestacks of coal fired power plants, oil refinery and chemical plant chimneys, and from flues of manufacturing companies making materials, industrial products, and consumer goods can be cleaned. The separated carbon dioxide gas must be compressed and transported to suited geological underground cavities.

This method cannot be applied to the exhausts of automobiles, trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes. Sequestration is unaffordable for homes, commercial buildings, and small manufacturing and fabricating establishments.

The challenges for the new administration and the new Congress to come up with a good, effective energy plan will be intimidating. Drilling for oil in the US, energy conservation, and “Cap and Trade” schemes will not solve our energy problems. Conservation may be necessary to provide temporary relief at the pump. Unavoidable future environmental disasters may be delayed by a couple of years. None of the three concepts can stop global overheating.

We must bite the bullet. We must replace all fossil fuels with renewable energies and nuclear heat. To operate our transportation sector, we need liquid fuels. We must learn to produce petroleum substitutes. Petroleum reserves and production capacities are getting tight and prices are skyrocketing. We must wake up. We cannot continue and let the present owners of fossil fuels destroy the habitats of our grandchildren and their offspring.

Well, basically carbon offsetting helps you to offset the carbon dioxide that you use when flying or driving etc by planting trees or installing solar panels and thereby removing your contribution to global climate change. You contribute to pollution by driving; you reduce the pollution by planting trees! You are carbon neutral!

What is Carbon Dioxide?

Carbon Dioxide is an inevitable product of the way we all live today. It is produced primarily through the burning of fossil fuels in: -

• electricity generation

• the powering of vehicles, trains and aircraft

• home heating and cooking (gas, wood, coal, oil)

Using Renewable Energy is one way of reducing the amount of fossil fuel that we burn via homes and businesses.

Gases released into the atmosphere by human activity are forming an insulating barrier around the Earth, preventing the natural release of heat from our atmosphere. There are a number of gases that are held responsible for this process, which is sometimes referred to as ‘the greenhouse effect’. While methane and other gases contribute to the problem, the chief culprit, by virtue of the volumes produced, is carbon dioxide.

Currently, around one quarter of carbon emissions are absorbed by the soil and one quarter by the oceans.

The Kyoto Protocol, negotiated by more than 160 nations, aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by setting legally binding emissions reduction targets for developed countries. Under Kyoto, the UK’s target is to cut its emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. However, the UK government is convinced that the UK can and should go further. The Kyoto Protocol is only the first step. The Government has therefore set a domestic goal to go further than the Kyoto commitment and cut the UK’s emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2010.

You Can Make a Difference, This is How

You, your business or employer may be already taking steps to tackle their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at source using renewable energy and efficiency measures wherever possible. An initiative that offers extra action for businesses to offset their remaining CO2 emissions through tree planting.

By supporting tree planting across the UK, businesses can help to create valuable woodland that will grow to sequester (absorb and store) CO2 pollution and in so doing, help with the fight against climate change.

In addition to the environmental benefits of absorbing atmospheric carbon as they grow and mature, woodland provides a rich and important habitat valued by wildlife and people alike.

By using a simple carbon calculator you can obtain an idea of how much carbon dioxide you, your family, your business are responsible for producing each year. Using data sources you can calculate how many trees you need to plant to offset or balance your carbon dioxide production. Your lifestyle can then be said to be carbon neutral or balanced.

Visit GuideMeGreen for various companies that can neutralize your carbon contribution.

We need only read the front page headlines of every major newspaper to understand the deepening oil crisis and the worldwide repercussions of supply and demand as it relates to our traditional energy resources. Is it any wonder that renewable sources of energy are gaining in popularity as an alternative resource? Biofuel is one emerging energy source that may help address the supply-and-demand dilemma versus modern world overdependence on petroleum and petroleum-based applications. Furthermore, biofuel advocates stress that biofuels give off cleaner emissions of carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide, two greenhouse gases that are responsible for climactic change and global warming.

The Difference Between Biofuel and Fossil Fuel

The critical difference between biofuel and traditional fossil fuel is the number of years it takes to form. Biofuel is derived from recently dead biological or organic material. Traditional fossil fuel comes from long dead (read: millions of years old) biological organisms. For this reason, biofuel is considered a renewable resource because it can be replenished in a short period of time. Fossil fuel is classified as a non-renewable resource because its reserves are being depleted much faster than it takes to form new reserves.

While biofuel and fossil fuel are carbon-based properties (they both derive from biological matter) biofuel is considered carbon neutral because the energy is derived from plants, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Whereas, fossil fuels released carbon dioxide, which has been stored beneath the earth surface for millions of years, into the air. Carbon dioxide emissions are the number one pollutant.

Biofuel comes from a variety of feedstock sources, of which the more common ones are corn, sugar cane, palm, wheat, algae, and jatropha. From these feedstock sources, two popular fuels are produced for transportation and machineries. They are biodiesel and bioethanol. Broken down further, biodiesel is derived from plant oils; bioethanol is derived from fermented starch or sugar crops.

How Are Biofulels Used?

Biofuels can be used in a pure (denoted as B100) or a blended form (denoted as a percentage). Biofuel is the most common fuel used in Europe because European car manufacturers outfit their cars with diesel engines. For most unmodified diesel engines, advocates say blends of up to 20% (B20) are deemed safe. Higher concentrations require modifications to the diesel engine.

Bioethanol is suggested as a substitute for gasoline in vehicles. However, users have to be careful in choosing the proper blend of ethanol. Generally, a 10% blend of ethanol (E10) may be safe to be used in newer cars. Lower concentrations have been used in some older engines without having adverse effects on vehicle fuel lines, but users should consult their car manufacturers to find out if bioethanol is safe for their engines. In some cases, conversions can void the manufacturer warranty.

Proponents Say

Advocates suggest businesses, especially those in the transportation industry will benefit from using biofuels on two fronts: (1) When biofuel prices are more stable than oil prices, companies are in a better position to plan and budget fuel expenditures for the year. (2) Cleaner vehicular emissions may save transportation companies maintenance costs, while helping them meet new government mandated environmental standards.

Opponents Say

Opponents question how governments establish standards, regulations, and mandates and suggest that the underlying motivation for setting certain standards and enforcing mandates is political.

In other words, opponents contend that politicians are showing preferential treatment to their constituents and lobbyists. The end result is that governments, not the economy, are creating winners and losers. If your company or industry falls on the out of political favor side, you may wind up paying higher taxes or incurring higher costs to meet those politically inspired mandates

Car Manufacturer Status

Car manufactures today are being forced to produce more vehicles that are biofuel ready. In addition to using cheaper fuel, both manufacturers and buyers will be given government incentives (in the form of tax credits) to embrace renewable and alternative energy. Studies also suggest that certain types of biofuel (e.g., biodiesel) can make engines last longer when users maintain their cars by using the right biofuel blend.

The Food vs. Fuel Debate

Biofuel does have an underside and has been the subject of a current debate on food vs. fuel. Since biofuel uses plants that are also used in food supply (corn, maize, wheat, sugar cane, and coconut), this raises the question of whether it is appropriate to use food crops to create alternative fuel instead of filling world food demand. The debate has been further intensified as the world experienced what was deemed as a food crisis in 2007. Critics contend that using agricultural land to produce crops to be used in biofuel production led to this crisis.

These issues must be ironed out by policymakers and regulatory bodies to ensure a workable balance between access to energy and all other necessities.

Proponents and opponents come together around environmental and health benefits of going green. Thus the conversion to more biofuels is probably inevitable. Some are very concerned with how that is executed, since the timing of the changes is not clear. Also total direct and indirect costs and what groups benefit and which groups suffer are major concerns. With Congressional leadership dedicated to accelerating greener energy in a way that benefits their constituents and lobbyists (For example, why do tax deductions for trial attorneys help the general public?), there will definitely be winners and losers.

What the biofuels discussion is pointing to is the urgency to begin planning NOW for this inevitability to help protect industries and consumers from rising costs from energy, regulations and taxes.