Eliminates Carbon Emissions and Slashes Costs up to 45-percent with Solar Photovoltaic Design

ORLANDO, FL and NEW YORK – Renewable Energy Solution Systems, Inc. [RESS] the launch of a new renewable energy solution which will deliver a low-cost, solar DC-to-DC, power solution for mobile cell power cabinets.  The patent-pending technologies will also include a redundancy capacity should the power grid become unavailable.

RESS is planning the rollout of the RES 64i™ Solution Series during Q3, 2010.  The RES 64i™ turnkey solar DC-DC power solution is specifically designed and fitted for any mobile telecom power cabinet.

The unprecedented growth is creating a new configuration as far as power usage and demands. Up until this point, the cell tower power cabinets have been powered by the local utilities and the power grid, backed up by diesel and batteries. By the end of 2009, there will be over 260,000 towers, representing approximately 1,000,000 power cabinets.  Compounding the growth and proliferation of cell phones is the growth of smart phones, which require significantly more bandwidth.

Mobile cell power cabinets are the primary contributor of Telco carbon emissions due to their reliance upon power provided by the utilities. According to a 2008 report published by Forrester Research, Telco companies account for 37% of ICT carbon emissions.

“We are excited about the introduction of the 64i for the telecom industry. The 64i finally offers a solar power solution that is a practical, cost-effective and compelling choice for remote wireless telecom cell sites. Our RESS 64i makes good on its promise to deliver a solar telecom solution to an issue which has baffled the industry for years, if not decades. Our technology solutions are perfectly positioned to benefit from the growth in mobile Internet usage while limited the greenhouse gas effect,” said George Demakos, President & CEO.

The Company:

Renewable Energy Solution Systems, Inc. [RESS] is among the nation’s first renewable energy companies providing affordable, turnkey telecom solar energy solutions for the wireless telecommunications industry, mobile phone carriers, wireless tower operators, and broadcast communications infrastructure companies. RESS offers renewable technology solutions for commercial installation.  RESS operates offices in Orlando, Florida and Westbury, New York.  For more information go to www.renewablesolutions.com or www.RES64i.com.

The increasing demand to make human lives easier has pushed man to create chemicals which can help create products, heat and cool enclosed environment, and innovate technology. Unfortunately, such chemicals bring environmental consequences such as increased atmospheric temperature which lead to unfavorable weather changes, disruption of habitats of living things, and global warming.

As such, the U.S. and international governments are establishing regulations to limit the usage of manmade chemical substances that deplete the ozone layer, have a high global warming potential, or increase the fugitive emissions related to Greenhouse Gases (GHGs).

Refrigerant gas used to run commercial refrigeration units, as well as air-conditioning systems and heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, is a chief cause of climate change because it is made up of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons. These gases contribute to global warming and also deteriorate the ozone layer. Because of the great harm refrigerant gas can cause to the Earth, the United States and many international countries are phasing out its usage, with complete removal by 2015.

Fossil fuels are a major cause of climate change because they lead to an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Natural gas, oil and coal used to operate vehicles and generate electricity emit high levels of carbon dioxide, identified as a chief contributor to global warming. Fossil fuels also produce carbon monoxide, methane emissions, nitrous oxide and nitrogen oxides, all substances that impact air quality and global warming.

Scientists have found that methane is a significant cause of climate change. This greenhouse gas is discharged by cows, pigs, horses, sheep and other domesticated animals. Methane gas is also discharged from garbage in landfills, fertilizers, oil drilling and coal mining. In addition, when a gas leak occurs, a high volume of the dangerous chemical is discharged at one time.

Ozone depletion has been found to be a main cause of climate change. It occurs from things we use every day. Commercial refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems all contain harmful gases that continue to destroy the ozone layer. Refrigerant gases like hydcrocholoflurocarbons (HCFCs) and chlorofluorocarbosn (CFCs) are harmful gases but which are used largely for cooling equipment and refrigeration.

There are several factors that are considered a cause of climate change. They include aerosols, land use, animal agriculture, deforestation, and cement manufacturing. To pinpoint measures which can help minimize impacts on global warming, such areas are being studied.

Many types of pollutants are a cause of climate change. Common pollutants are carbon dioxide, methane, black carbon and nitrous oxide. As these chemical pollutants increase, the ozone layer gets depleted, which results to global warming. Scientists warn that global warming can destroy the planet if no action is taken.

Simply put, too much heat stored in the atmosphere is the cause of climate change. The amount of greenhouse gases in the air contributes to atmospheric heat. Increased heat on lands, oceans, and the atmosphere has changed the Earth’s climate. As a result, human, animal, plant and marine life will be severely impacted.

For the first time, all major international players in Product Carbon Footprinting and Carbon Labelling did gather on the 26th and 27th of February 2009 for the first summit of the PCF World Forum in Berlin. The event marks a unique opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences at this key moment for the field. Participating companies and Carbon Footprinting initiatives: »AIST, Japan »ADEME, France »Carbon Trust, UK »Casino, France »Co-Convener ISO/TC207/SC7/WG2, Austria »defra, UK »DG Environment, European Commission »Federal Environmental Ministry, Germany »krav and Svenskt Sigill, Sweden »Nature&More / Soil&More, The Netherlands »Migros, Switzerland »New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Footprint Strategy, New Zealand »PCF Pilot Project, Germany »The Carbon Disclosure Project, UK »Tesco, UK »WBCSD/WRI, Switzerland/USA The first international Product Carbon Footprinting and Carbon Labelling Summit gave major initiatives from around the world the opportunity to meet in Berlin to discuss: * Carbon footprinting – where is the common ground? * The future of GHG reporting to consumers? * What should companies do until a common standard exists? * Market or policy driven? More informations and conference DVD www.pcf-world-forum.org The PCF WORLD FORUM is intiated by Berlin based Think-Do Tank THEMA1 www.thema1.de

In the past dozen years or so a major controversy has developed through out the world about changes that are supposedly taking place with the earth’s climate. There is a large body of opinion that believes the earth’s temperature is getting warmer due to the increase in greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), caused by the burning of fossil fuels and increasing industrial activity, and unless governments take action to remedy the situation then mankind is in serious trouble.

This theory is not believed by everyone. Indeed there are many eminent scientists who have said that the theory has no credibility as the evidence presented by its supporters is inconclusive. So there are two schools of thought on this matter, each adamant that they’re right:

1) Those who believe implicitly that global warming is taking place and that man is entirely responsible by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide ( a ‘greenhouse’ gas) in the atmosphere. I call these people the Scaremongers.

2) Those who believe that much more evidence is needed before any categorical claims can be made. I call these people Idealists.

So lets have a closer look at the issues raised by these two factions:

The Scaremongers predict doom and gloom.
The ‘Yes’ case says emphatically that the earth is getting warmer at an increasing rate, posing a dangerous threat to the future of mankind. They say that the increase in global temperatures over the past 50 years has been caused by a world-wide increase in industrial activity during that same period and earlier. They also suggest that the problem is getting progressively worse and that higher temperatures will lead to melting ice in the polar regions; higher sea levels causing world-wide flooding; more violent storms, hurricanes, typhoons etc; problems in the production of food; and a wide number of other circumstances that could pose  problems for life on earth.

The ‘Yes’ case’s solution is to take severe measures today to stop disasters from happening in the future.

They suggest halting and then reversing the situation by eliminating our dependence on oil and coal and embracing ‘clean energy’ such as wind, solar, tidal power; finding an alternative to using oil derivatives for transportation; and most controversially, heavily taxing users of ‘dirty energy’ to force them to switch over to  ‘cleaner’ alternatives.
As the biggest users of ‘dirty energy’ the western nations would be exposed to the full impact of these severe impositions.

The Idealists, on the other hand, want more concrete evidence of this forecast change.

The ‘No’ case believes that more credible evidence is needed and collected over a longer period of time, before any definitive conclusion can be determined. They consider that statistically the 50 years period that the Scaremongers quote is nowhere near enough time to establish a long-term trend in the world’s temperatures, taking into account that the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years. They point to the changes, both ups and downs, of the earth’s temperature during its recent history. They also suggest that if a period of climate change is starting then it’s part of a cycle that’s been seen to occur periodically in the past.

The ‘No’ case says that the relationship between possible rising temperatures and man’s industrial activity is at best nothing more than an unproven theory. They suggest that much more concrete evidence than what’ has been presented so far is needed, and as the Scaremongers have been pushing this theory for at least 10 years without producing further evidence, then it’s still a theory.

Some people even suggest that the Scaremongers are inciting public opinion to advance their political ambitions.

However, many of the Idealists agree that a switch to cleaner and renewable energy resources would be beneficial for mankind in the long term, but that the measures put forward by the ‘Yes’ people go too far. Generally, the Idealists agree with the need to find alternate means of energy for when the present sources of fossil fuels – coal, natural gas, oil, uranium -  expire, and to get away from suppliers in politically sensitive areas.

The ‘No’ people suggest that as there is a very slim chance of the Scaremongers being proved correct, other world-wide problems should be tackled first and given a greater degree of emphasis than is the present case. Here the Idealists are referring to major issues of world-wide poverty; the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor countries; the decline in health services to poorer countries; the deterioration in the quality of political governance in Africa; threats of religious confrontation; as well as the many regionalized issues that have been a source of continuous friction between nations for decades.

This is an attempt to put some balance into the ongoing international controversy that is the theory of man-made climate change.

Firms are set quotas on how much carbon dioxide they can produce per year, if they produce more than this allowance, then they buy an allowance from another firm that has not reached it’s quota on how much it can produce in one year! Get it?

Emissions Trading is particularly suited to the emissions of greenhouse gases, the gases responsible for global warming, which have the same effect wherever they are emitted.

Emissions of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas – are widely thought to be a key factor in global warming, increasing atmospheric temperatures around the world.

The idea of the carbon-trading scheme was to raise the cost to firms of continuing to pollute while creating a market to give an incentive to become more environmentally efficient.

They are traded in a similar way to buying and selling shares, there are a number of companies that offer the buying and selling of carbon units and many offer different commissions and even free trading if you shop around. I even saw one firm that offered a one stop shopping for Renewable Energy, Biodiversity, and Greenhouse Gas. Its like an online retailer but for things you can’t touch. Ill have 2 pounds of apples, a bag of potatoes and a Biodiversity credit please!!!

On an international level countries are able to deal in carbon trading The potential benefits of such a system for developing countries would be that poorer, developing countries can sell there surplus carbon dioxide to richer countries. This income could stimulate much needed economic growth. They could also achieve their Kyoto commitments at the lowest possible cost as the money needed to invest in cleaner technology can be funded by the trading on carbon units. Countries like the USA and UK could pay the countries in Africa to REFOREST there lands, this reduction in carbon dioxide in the planet would then allow USA/UK firms to emit extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It would probably be cheaper to REFOREST parts of Africa then to buy state of the art cleaner technology for firms in the West. How many trees could you plant for a million dollars/pounds in Africa? The cost of cleaner technology in the West obviously varies from industry to industry, size of the company, technological advances available etc but surely a company would not trade CO2 unless we were talking big money. Carbon trading sounds a bit strange to me, as you are trading air, but if this leads to more trees being planted and a reduction in climate change – Im all for it!

I’ve heard just about every argument under the sun when discussing the greenhouse gas offsets model with friends and colleagues. After hearing these arguments for the first time, I often wondered whether the comments were justified or whether they were just a pile of excuses for not making the voluntary step (in the context of travel). For the purposes of this article, “carbon offsets” and “greenhouse gas offsets” are used interchangeably. Although carbon dioxide is considered an important greenhouse gas (GHG), it is not the only GHG that is offset through the numerous programs available worldwide.

Those that are not as familiar with all forms of carbon offsetting often link the concept immediately to reforestation or tree planting which can produce a carbon sink and help an individual, group or organization achieve a ‘climate neutral’ status. While this is a common form of carbon offsetting, there are various other types of useful offset projects. This is important because a lot of controversy surrounding offsets seems to have its roots in reforestation project criticism.

Although many organizations and individuals invest in GHG offsets irrespective of travel (e.g. Offsetting industrial operations), a significant driver for the birth of this model is the pollution caused by our local and international travel. While road transportation obviously amounts to a large portion of world CO2 emissions, the intensity (impact per passenger km) and diversity of air travel stands out as well. In addition to altering atmospheric concentrations of CO2, ozone and methane, airplane emissions lead to the formation of contrails while emitting water vapor, sulphur oxides, nitric oxides, nitrogen dioxide and soot8.

Although there seems to be sufficient evidence linking our travels (particularly by car and plane) to global warming and atmospheric degradation, many travellers are hesitant to take that next step to offset their emissions while away from home. Yes, not everyone feels strongly enough about the environment to pay more for a trip voluntarily…but among those that do, I believe this unwillingness has its roots with both the public and the “carbon neutral” companies. I feel both must put forth more effort to keep GHG offsets transparent and useful. When it comes to investing in carbon or greenhouse gas offsets, the onus is on you as the consumer to ensure you are contributing to a true and efficient offset program. By doing your research and investing only in companies that have taken all the appropriate steps, you will help to add more credibility to certification programs and spur organizations to improve their business and operate more responsibly.

Foundations such as the Gold Standard makes one’s decision much easier as they work to alleviate the major concerns surrounding this environmental economic model and provide a label to carbon offsetting projects. To ease your research efforts, independent websites simplify the process by allowing you access to a useful database of GHG offset companies with an unbiased rating included. These companies have been emerging fast from out of the woodwork so it is important to know who is legit and who is not – most importantly, knowing where your investment is going.

After doing more research myself, I am convinced that the process of purchasing carbon/greenhouse gas offsets can be fair and rewarding, and also of lasting benefit to the environment. I will also agree with what David Suzuki said when I saw him on the “If You Were Prime Minister Tour” – that at least in the short term, as we more towards cleaner technologies and methods, carbon offsets help to fill the gap. A certain amount of trust is ultimately put on to the offset company and also on a 3rd party to ensure the project is controlled and streamlined, but with the maturity of certification and carbon offset organizations, many purchasers believe this is a non-issue.

In conclusion, I’m not going to start naming celebrities and musicians who swear by carbon offsets while on tour – I’ll spare you the lame angle. Whether you have already supported offset projects or are thinking about it in the future, even Pearl Jam knows to do their homework before jumping into it blind. Oops, that one slipped.