Extreme extraction

A few weeks ago, during the latest round of international climate negotiations, the Polish delegation (who were hosting the meeting) claimed that climate change might actually be a good thing – particularly because it could melt much of the ice in the so-called northwestern passage between Canada and the Arctic. This, they argued, would make international shipping easier, but would also provide better access to much of the offshore oil that is thought to lie under the Arctic Ocean.

This is obviously a ridiculous position for a nation state to hold, especially one that was supposed to be hosting an international meeting on climate change at the time. However, while Poland's idea was seen as risible, the general idea that we should continue to dig up oil from anywhere that we possibly can holds firm among many people. A large number of countries and companies have no problem with the idea of extracting oil from ever more extreme places.

This is the mindset that has led to the tar sands developments in northern Alberta, Canada. Tar sands are difficult to get out of the ground, and still take a huge amount of processing even once they've been dug up – yet we seem happy to pay the price, as long as we get more oil. It is the mindset that has led companies from Russia and the UK to start drilling in waters in the Arctic Ocean. An oil spill in these regions would be disastrous to local wildlife and incredibly difficult to clean up, but this seems to be of no matter to these corporations – indeed, Russia went as far as arresting 30 people in international waters after they protested against one of the offshore drilling rigs. It seems the power of the state is just as strongly invested as the corporations in the continuation of the oil age.

This is because both the states and the companies desire the continuation of the status quo by any means necessary. They benefit from a society which is hooked on cheap fuel – cheap fuel which supports the production necessary for a consumer society, and helps maintain the dominant position of certain people and certain countries, and the subjection of others. There are a few clear winners from this state of affairs, but there are just as many losers around the world – and I don't just mean the people who will be most affected by the climatic changes caused by burning all those fossil fuels.

The Arctic, and other remote but oil-rich regions like the tar sands area around the Athabasca river in Canada, have people living in them. These people have led simple but dignified lives in these areas for centuries, if not millennia. The Inuit, for example, have built their lives in some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth by following nature's rhythms and catching fish and mammals. This way of life is threatened by oil drilling that will destroy the natural order of ecosystems in the area. Even those of us living more conventional lives lose out from this rush for oil – we pay more and more at the gas pump just to get to and from work, we breathe in more and more pollution from the air around us, and we see more and more government money go on supporting the oil industry rather than providing essential services to people who need them.

This is what NRGLab is struggling against, particularly with our work on alternative energy. We don't believe human civilization should be so reliant on such an outdated form of energy, one which causes such destruction to the environment, and requires such damage to human lifestyles and livelihoods the world over. And we'd love to hear from you if you agree with us, and if you think you have the necessary skills to help fight back.

climate negotiations, Polish delegation, oil spill, Arctic ocean, fossil fuels, oil drilling, NRGLab

In remembrance of Nelson Mandela

Deng Xiaoping, the former President of China, was asked in the 1980s what he thought the impact of the French Revolution had been on world history. He replied “it is too soon to say”. To an extent, the same answer can be given to the question “what is the historical significance of the life of Nelson Mandela?”. As the tributes and eulogies are being written we can say for certain some of the events he inspired and facilitated, but it's really too soon for any of to fully understand the impact this man had and will have on history.

But we can say a few things. We know that he fought for the downtrodden, the oppressed, the unequal – the people with nothing. He fought against unjust and undeserved power, against powerful people who had no qualms about hanging on to their privileges through violence and repression and racism. This is the well-known Nelson Mandela, the version that will be taught in schools and repeated on news broadcasts, and to an extent this is rightly so – for he did all of these things.

However, some of the details of Mandela's life and work will be less repeated in  the media in the coming days, as they reveal a man who was not just the simple anti-racist symbol that western politicians would like him to be. Mandela, like Gandhi, understood that you don't get equality just by asking nicely. There must be the underlying threat that equality, because it is a right, will at some point be taken if it is not freely given. This explains Mandela's leadership of the armed wing of the ANC, one of the most controversial aspects of his life, and the thing that most directly led him to a prison cell on Robben Island. And Mandela knew the power of solidarity among the oppressed, and the way in which working class organization can provide that threat and that promise – he was a lifelong supporter of trade unions.

Another thing that is forgotten by the politicians that are currently celebrating him – their predecessors, the powerful people of the 1970s and 80s, hated Mandela. In the last decade-and-a-half, as an old man who had retired from active political life, he was easy to refer to as an example of how capitalism and liberal democracy can allow some level of justice and equality. But before the changes in the South African regime became inevitable in the early 1990s he was despised and abandoned by western leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – called a communist and a terrorist. Those leaders understood that Mandela posed a challenge to them, and they wanted to keep him down for as long as possible. Today's leaders are largely the same – a modern-day Mandela, championing the poor against the powerful, would no doubt spend a very long time in prison as well.

One final thing that we can definitely say about Nelson Mandela at this point – his life should be seen as an inspiration for future action, not merely as a monument to past achievements. Not everything he did was perfect, and the difficulties he faced in overturning centuries of oppression are evident in the continuing struggles of South Africa today. But ultimately, his vision was one of justice, equality, and fairness – the same things that we are fighting for, in our very different way. We hope you will join us in the journey.

Mandela, Deng Xiaoping, Gandhi, ANC, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, NRGLab, SH-box, violence, repression, racism

WalMart – the face of inequality in America?

America’s biggest company WalMart has been in the news a lot in the past few days – but perhaps not for the reasons they’d like. First, they blamed a poor sales performance in the last quarter on America’s new healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, claiming that it was forcing people to spend money on their health rather than buying consumer goods from their stores.

A few days later it was revealed that some WalMart stores were holding canned food drives for their own employees – asking staff to donate food for their less fortunate colleagues who couldn’t afford a Thanksgiving dinner.

All of this comes a few weeks after 54 people were arrested outside a Los Angeles WalMart for protesting against the company’s incredibly low wages. The protestors were demanding a minimum wage of $25,000 a year for each employee (for context, that’s around €18,000). Instead, they were met by police, and held overnight in jail unless they could produce $5,000 bail. One protestor told reporters his current wage was only $12,000 a year to look after himself and his two children.

These three stories about one company all touch on one of the biggest issues facing America (and the rest of the world) today: the increasing gap between the economic ‘winners’ at the top of the pile, and the rapidly expanding group of ‘losers’ that hold them up. A WalMart executive never has to worry about healthcare costs or feeding their family – those things cost a fraction of their monthly income. Meanwhile, the work of actually ensuring their employees can live or afford healthcare is passed down to the charity of their own colleagues.

In fact, the ways in which huge corporations like WalMart suck money from the middle and working classes goes even deeper. WalMart’s wages are so low that the majority of its employees have to rely on food stamps and other forms of government assistance to pay their rent, feed their families, and stay healthy. The money for that assistance has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the taxes of ordinary people – essentially, WalMart’s low wages are being subsidised by ordinary people across the country.

How have we ended up in this situation (and this doesn’t just happen in the US, WalMart is simply a highly visible example)? Through a system that focuses on growth and profit at all costs, to the exclusion of the well-being of people. A system which helps the people at the top stay there, at the expense of the rest of us. A system which supports inequality because it’s good for business.

These are issues that concern us greatly at the Territory of ‘Shell’ – instead of the modern gospel of profit and individualism, we aim to promote traditional values of family, friendship and mutual aid, and to replace faceless greed with a constructive new society of equality and fair treatment for all. We rely on independent thinkers and scientists to achieve this, and on our supporters to help spread the word far and wide. We take no funding from corporations. If you think you can help us achieve our goals, get in touch – we’d love to hear from you.

afford healthcare, Affordable Care Act, America's new healthcare law, ana shell, ana shell media, ana shell media press, buying consumer goods, constructive new society, government assistance to pay rent, healthcare costs, healthcare law, healthcare law in US, increasing gap between rich and poor,independent thinkers, inequality in America, issues facing America, John Wish, Los Angeles WalMart, monthly income, mutual aid, poor sales performance, promote traditional values of family, protesting against low wages, rely on food stamps, spend money on health, suck money from middle class, territory of shell, Thanksgiving dinner, WalMart, Walmart holding canned food drives for their own employees, WalMart news, Walmart protest, WalMart stores, WalMart sucks money

U.S. Better Buildings, Better Plants Program saves $1 billion!

The United States Energy Department recently released a list of more than 120 manufactures and businesses that are leading the charge to cut down on carbon emissions while simultaneously saving money on energy costs. The Obama Administration has already come out with the bold prediction that they'll double energy production by 2030 while simultaneously cutting costs. So far so good it seems, as the Department’s “Better Buildings, Better Plants Program” is reporting that nearly 1,800 facilities across the U.S. will save an estimated $1 billion this year.

Oh – and those businesses also happen to be cutting down on 11 million metric tons of CO2! That’s 11 million metric tons of poison we won’t be breathing in the future.

“Through the Better Plants program, American manufacturers are cutting energy waste and saving millions of dollars each year,” says Kathleen Hogan, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency. “These manufacturers are leading by example – demonstrating the promise of energy efficiency, increasing competitiveness in the private sector and reducing harmful carbon pollution.”

Across the U.S., businesses spend more than $200 billion a year to power their offices and facilities. Through the Energy Department’s Better Plants Program, businesses take a voluntary oath to reduce their consumption by 25% over the next decade. As of today, the 120 participating companies represent nearly 8% of the country’s manufacturing energy footprint.

If they can change, then anyone can change!

During today’s World Energy Engineering Congress, Hogan recognized five companies in particular – AT&T, Cummins, Metal Industries, TE Connectivity and United Technologies Corporation – for exceeding their 25% consumption reduction goal. Along with the other Better Plants participants, these companies are modeling alternative yet affordable energy management strategies that save bottom lines and strengthen the competitiveness of the U.S. on the global market.

The “Better Buildings, Better Plants Program” is only one aspect of President Obama’s grander plan to make American commercial and industrial buildings at least 20% more energy efficient. His initiative also includes the Better Buildings Challenge, where businesses, universities, and local governments can agree to cut down on their energy consumption by the aforementioned 20%.

Do you own a business? Then what are you waiting for? Step up to the challenge! Or tell your boss that you know a way to save the company TONS of money over the long term. It makes for a great publicity stunt. And not to mention – you'll be doing the right thing!

So join NRGLab in helping create a better, greener future for us all. Because people come and go. The Earth is here forever.

Unites States Energy Department, Obama Administration, carbon emissions, energy production, NRGLab, Kathleen Hogan

Are you being fooled by “renewable” energy?

The green energy movement comes with its own unique language. Words like “renewable” are often thrown around without wondering if people actually understand them. Turns out most of today’s “renewable” technologies aren't all that – well, renewable.

Are you being fooled?

When I say “renewable” energy, I’m talking about energy that doesn’t increase pollution, doesn’t deplete natural resources, and can be produced within the planet’s annual solar budget. By this broad definition, practically none of today’s existing “renewable” energy sources strictly qualify. In some instances, renewable alternatives could never be viable sources of energy without the fossil fuel inputs on which they’re based. In such instances, these alternatives aren’t truly “renewable” due to their fossil fuel dependence.

Take wind turbines, for example. The turbines themselves are made of steel, which is produced courtesy of coal. They’re anchored by concrete, the production of which is a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions.

Wind turbines, as well as solar panels, are produced with limited rare earth elements. Even crops for fuel production are typically grown with pesticides and herbicides derived from petroleum and fertilizer made from natural gas.
“What about corn-ethanol?” you ask. “Isn’t that all-natural and renewable?”

Well, corn-ethanol is produced using electricity generated from natural gas or coal, and processed with steam derived from natural gas. Biodiesels in general are normally produced using an oil feedstock derived from methanol. Many advanced biofuels depend on hydrogen, which is made almost exclusively from natural gas.

Turns out these “all-natural” sources of energy aren’t so “all-natural” after all.

Technology that consumes limited resources, degrades topsoil, depletes aquifers faster than they can be revitalized, or causes pollution to build up in the ecosystem is frequently called renewable, but it isn’t practically sustainable.

And that’s what the world needs – a sustainable plan for the future.

As with most things in life, we have to make trade-offs when it comes to green energy technology. Generally those trade-offs are economic. We’re forced to consume fossil fuels during the production of renewable alternatives in order to keep consumer prices stable. But renewable energy that depletes resources will ultimately pose the same threat as fossil fuels. It’s time we turned “renewable” into “sustainable.”

NRGLab is heavily invested in making green energy technology sustainable for the entire world. For information on projects like the polycrystalline SH-Box, or the SV-Turbine for the efficient conversion of agricultural waste into useable fuel, visit nrglab.asia.

green energy, renewable energy, NRGLab, natural resources, fossil fuels, energy sources, generate electricity, SH-box

Germany’s push for green energy putting stress on consumers

Germany’s attempt to transition away from fossil fuels and shut down the country’s nuclear power plants has proven more arduous than originally anticipated.

Over 30 wind turbines off the Coast of Borkum Island in the North Sea won’t be operational until next year, and the project is currently running into some costly obstacles. As the newly constructed turbines turn, they remain unconnected to an energy grid in desperate need of expansion. And despite the country’s best efforts, carbon emission levels actually rose last year! (Reserve coal-burning plants were forced to go back online in order to close the gap in energy supply and demand.)

In the meantime, German families are being hit by rapidly increasing electricity prices, to the point where an alarming number can no longer afford to pay their monthly utility bills. Small business owners are growing worried that rising energy costs will essentially put them out of business. Some energy-intensive businesses have even begun to shy away from Germany for fear that they’ll be at a disadvantage on the global market.

“Often times, I don’t go into my living room in order to save electricity,” says Olaf Taeuber, a small business owner in Berlin. “You feel the pain in your pocketbook.”

Taeuber relies on a single five-watt bulb to light his kitchen when he comes home from work. In times of emergency, he switches on a neon tube, which consumes all of 25 watts.

So what you probably use to light your closet, Taeuber uses to light his kitchen!

Taeuber is only one of a number of Germans suffering to survive the country’s ambitious energy reformation.  But because the project has unilateral political support, there has been no publ backlash during the current election campaign.

In the emotional aftermath of the nuclear disaster in Japan back in 2011, Chancellor Merkel, of the conservative and pro-business Christian Democrats, decided to make a push for green energy. It calls for Germany to close all nuclear power plants by the year 2022 and transition almost entirely to alternative energy sources by 2050.

The chancellor’s gamble could prove to be her most lasting domestic legacy – or it could turn out to be an utter failure!

According to government estimates, the final cost of the project is expected land somewhere around $735 billion. Yet as the project’s variables have grown, so too have the costs for consumers.

Can't there be a way to transition towards renewable energy without hurting people and families? NRGLab thinks so. Visit nrglab.asia to see what we've got cooking up in innovative green technology.


green energy, coast of Borklum island, NRGLab, coal-burning plants, Chancellor Merkel, fossil fuels, nuclear power plants

U.S. almost energy rich: but for how long?

The United States energy industry is evolving quickly (but not congress’s ability to come to an agreement concerning climate change). The global price of oil per barrel is $70 higher compared to back in 2004. As a result, even though the U.S.’s domestic oil production has risen over the past two years (from 5.5 million barrels a day to 7.5 million), their annual bill for importing oil has skyrocketed to $365 billion.

Why?

All signs points to wasteful consumption habits. Americans simply take too much for granted. Companies focus more on profits than manufacturing conversion efficiencies, or utility bills, or energy alternatives.

The shale gas bubble in the U.S. has caused the domestic price of gas to drop from $10 per million cubic feet in 2010 to less than $4 million today. If car manufactures were to replace their gasoline and diesel engines with ones that ran on compressed gas, Americans could be paying as little as $0.50 cents a gallon. Imagine that!

Conventional power providers now fear that their coal-fired and nuclear plants are fast becoming extinct. Worse yet – their former customers might even become competitors, generating electricity for sale from new technology like the SH-Box by NRGLab – a portable generator capable of producing electricity for as little as $0.03 per kWh.

The U.S. government has barely addressed this impending energy revolution. Neither the Obama administration nor opposing Republicans have presented a clear-cut plan for how best to utilize the country’s newfound abundance of energy resources. A comprehensive reform of current energy policies must be conducted, while new policies that revitalize middle-class jobs must be passed.

But without a plan, will the U.S. allow this potentially world-changing opportunity to slip through their economic fingers?

While the rest of the world sits idly by and waits, NRGLab is striving towards a greener future with an array of innovative energy projects. From the aforementioned SH-Box, to the SV-Turbine for the gasification of agricultural waste, NRGLab is prepared to face the diverse problems we’ll surely face in the future.

For more information, visit nrglab.asia.


energy rich, shale gas bubble, energy industry, price of oil, climate change, diesel engines, NRGLab, SH-box, sv-turbine