Left Wing Environmentalists fight Synthetic Fuel!

[amicus]

Headline News Channel today had an interview with the Governor of Montana who said Montana's coal fields could produce enough synthetic fuel to power all the automobiles in America for the next two hundred years!

That caught my earballs.

So, of course, I went online:

synthetic oil from coal 2008 (key word search)

http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/552466.html

montana coal synthetic oil from coal (key word search)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/100-oil-liquid-coal/

Rather interesting as crude oil prices are predicted to surpass $200.00 a barrel a year from now and some are predicting gasoline prices between $8.00 to $10.00 per gallon.

The Governor stated that investors are holding back to learn what the Federal Government policies will be based on environmental protection laws and the cost of dealing with CO2 emissions.

Complete energy independence from Middle East oil in less than a decade just by this process and fuel costs to produce, about $1.00 per gallon, with State and Federal Taxes added, a little under $2.00 per gallon at the pump.

But the left wing wants nothing to do with this.

Go figure?

As if the left wing democrats haven't done enough damage to the economy already?

Gimme a break!

Amicus....on the attack!

 

[starrkers]

But (and I haven't ready any of the links yet), isn't this just swapping one problem for another?
Coal reserves are dwindling slowly, synthetic car fuel from coal is just going to deplete those reseverves faster.
It won't solve the oil crisis, just defer it a bit.

 

[amicus]

But (and I haven't ready any of the links yet), isn't this just swapping one problem for another?
Coal reserves are dwindling slowly, synthetic car fuel from coal is just going to deplete those reseverves faster.
It won't solve the oil crisis, just defer it a bit.

~~~

Hindsight is a marvelous ability, starrkers, but rather impossible to work with.

Progress occurs a little at a time, as history teaches us. Science, invention, innovation all happens a little at a time, step by step.

Kinda like growing up, many parents, myself included, wished we could have gone from our ten year old girls to a twenty one year old in one step and leave those terrible teens alone.

Not that you represent this train of thought, but those who dream of a transition from a petroleum based economy to an energy source that will be cheap, non polluting and sustainable, are just that, dreamers.

I can not predict the future any better than anyone else, but I do know that it is wise to use the resources one has at hand and build from there.

The current liberal thinking is to destroy the current economy and hope for the best.

Not buying into that.

Amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

But (and I haven't ready any of the links yet), isn't this just swapping one problem for another?
Coal reserves are dwindling slowly, synthetic car fuel from coal is just going to deplete those reseverves faster.
It won't solve the oil crisis, just defer it a bit.

The US coal reserves are indeed large enough to power the current level of energy useage in the US for 200 years. That's a disingenuous figure because the current level of usage is NOT goping to stay the same and all indications that the only thing we cando is slow the rate of growth.

Still a hundred plus years of breathing room to really develop renewable and sustainable sources -- maybe perfect fusion power? -- would be a big help...

Provided of course that we actually do something to replace fossil fuels of all types while depleting the coal reserves in place of the oil reserves.

However, despite Ami's protestations of nefarious motives by liberals, synthetic oil from coal is essentially a bad idea because it simply moves the worst pollution from coal to the synthetic oil plants instead of the end user plants. If you're going to concentrate the pollution from coal, concentrate it at a power plant with bioreactors full of algae algae tailored to use the toxic sulphur compounds as well as the CO2. Then turn the algae into real fuels or synthetic rubber and plastics.

 

[Katyusha]

Provided of course that we actually do something to replace fossil fuels of all types while depleting the coal reserves in place of the oil reserves.

Which we won't do, or we'd've been REALLY working on something for the last thirty years. I'm not talking about all these little labs and private people who invent something, like an engine that runs on water, I'm talking about a concerted effort by this country to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels altogether.

What will happen is what always happens, we figure out a band-aid and then think that it solves all. I'm worried about the environment, sure, but not nearly as much as I am about this mentality regarding finite resources. We find the band-aid, and then we all breathe a sigh of relief and decide it's not necessary to do anything else...leave it for future generations.

 

[amicus]

An almost impenetrable mindset rampant here, as if 'government' can magically decide on a course of action and make it happen.

Had you read the links I provided or done your own search you would have found answers to the questions you pose.

But it is that mindset that continues to frustrate me. You seem to want a world war two Manhattan project, or NASA entity to attack the problem and then enforce the answer on the population. That is fine for a dictatorial form of government but may I remind you, we don't live in one and they don't work anyway.

The mechanisms and protections are all in place for the free market to solve the energy crisis if you will just permit them the freedom to do the work.

Other countries are already proceeding with the coal to oil process, the method has been known since world war two.

But, no, you are like a house wife clean freak personality where everything must be eternally tidy and arranged.

Life is messy folks...get used to it...grow up!

amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

Which we won't do, or we'd've been REALLY working on something for the last thirty years. I'm not talking about all these little labs and private people who invent something, like an engine that runs on water, I'm talking about a concerted effort by this country to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels altogether.

What will happen is what always happens, we figure out a band-aid and then think that it solves all. I'm worried about the environment, sure, but not nearly as much as I am about this mentality regarding finite resources. We find the band-aid, and then we all breathe a sigh of relief and decide it's not necessary to do anything else...leave it for future generations.

You can blame Ami's free market forces for the failure to implement some of the solutions those little labs and rogue inventers -- for example, the final report on biofuel from pond grown algae estimated that oil prices would have to double, and stay doubled, for any of the various processes to be economical. The technology has been there, but the marketplace wouldn't pay for it.

However, those market forces had some help from short-sighted government policies -- like sales from the strategic oil reserve to artificially lower oil prices so that things like Algal biofuels would stay non-profitible. And that is in part what is holding up Montana's Coal investors -- they don't know if the governmentis going to do something stupid to take the profit out of sunthetic fuels as they have in the past.

A process for converting coal to synthetic oil has been around for sixty or seventy years -- the Germans used it during WWII among other synthetic fuel processes they used to prolong the war. LIke algal biofuels it can't compete with low oil prices that, until recently, the US and OPEC have co-operated to fix at levels that just made alternatives un-economical but maximized OPEC profits (and coincidently US petrochemical company profits.)

Government does need to get out of the oil business and quit playing favorites -- and that include the governor of Montana -- but it doesn't mean that the market place should be completely unregulated; there is a HUGE potential for fraud and confidence scams, like "engines that run on water" and the government does have a monopoly on nuclear fuel for Nuke powerplants.

 

[Handprints]

Speaking as a right-wing environmentalist (I think a working definition of this position is that you prefer wild, organic meat that you shot yourself on a plate with locally grown, seasonal vegetables. Plus more nukes.), I'm not wild about synfuels either.

At USD100/bbl+ for oil, they do make economic sense and it's a proven technology that SASOL in particular has demonstrated gives you >x energy results for energy inputs <x. (Unlike, say, biofuels: find a working cellulose converter, then we'll talk about that...) Unfortunately, the uncosted enviro-damage from synfuel processing is pretty damn huge - miles more than most other kinds of alt-energy. Plus, if oil prices fall back below USD75/bbl or so, even for a couple of years, you get a great gaping abandoned coal mine - typically open-pit mining, since that's the cheapest way to get the stuff out of the ground.

If you want to diversify away from oil, I'm mostly in favour. If you want to diversify towards synfuels, I'm wondering if you happen to represent something or someone sitting on a giant pile of coal. Nobody else is going to do very well out of a synfuel plan. Multi-source, multi-local energy production, plus nukes, seems to me like a better plan, as does more efficient consumption.

Best,
H

 

[impressive]

Yes, we *must* have industrial fuels -- produced in expensive plants and requiring expensive pollution control.

Under no circumstances should we move toward clean, "infinitely" renewable energies. It's too damned hard to make money on solar power, after all. There's not enough in-corporate-pockets return on investment for fuel cells. And let's blame the environmentalists for the lack of wind turbines.

Altruism is for pussies. Never, ever develop an energy source because "it's the right thing to do."

Our energy production and subsequent disposal must drive the economy or else we're not taking advantage of yet another way to suck the life out of those damned lazy working poor who, if they were worth the air they breathed, would have enough ambition to be greedy, power-hungry capitalists.

The move away from fossil fuels is never gonna come from the top. Ever. It will come from the trenches -- from the Jones' who install solar panels and buy a hybrid and the domino effect of their neighbors following suit. Trickle UP economics.

 

[S-Des]

The move away from fossil fuels is never gonna come from the top. Ever. It will come from the trenches -- from the Jones' who install solar panels and buy a hybrid and the domino effect of their neighbors following suit. Trickle UP economics.

I really like this (and agree completely). However, in the biggest conflict of it's type I know of, the wealthy and powerful in Cape Cod (led by Ted Kennedy) used money and influence to block a very large wind farm. As always, people want environmentally friendly energy...as long as it doesn't interfere with their good time.

I still love Ed Begley, who has proven that a private citizen can not only live an eco-friendly life, but can profit from it (he maintains he sells energy to the electric company from a windmill he bought). We need more people like him.

 

[oggbashan]

...The move away from fossil fuels is never gonna come from the top. Ever. It will come from the trenches -- from the Jones' who install solar panels and buy a hybrid and the domino effect of their neighbors following suit. Trickle UP economics.

It is beginning to happen locally.

Apart from a wind farm out at sea visible from my house that produces half the electricity to run the local district of 150,000 people, solar power is spreading among the community. Next door has solar heating and garden lights from batteries powered by solar power during the day. Some of our local traffic signs are lit by solar power and/or small windturbines (blades about 1 foot diameter).

Our local garden centres sell solar powered garden and security lights and solar powered pumps for ponds. Once you've bought them there are no bills and the only maintenance required is an occasional clean of the solar panel.

The UK government is considering tax incentives and relaxed planning consents for generating your own power. At present the capital cost of installing a windmill and solar cells would take 20 years or so to pay back in reduced bills. The technology is improving. When the windfarm was proposed it was going to produce one quarter of our power. By the time it was built it produced a third. It has recently been upgraded by replacing some of the gear train and modifying the generators to produce one half of our demand. Our power usage has increased but the windfarm is producing a higher percentage of our increased use.

Of course windfarms need other supplies for when the wind doesn't blow. Locally that's nuclear either from a UK reactor or from French nuclear stations.

Hull is proposing to have tidal generators. They would generate electricity for about four hours in every 11.5 hours but if tidal generators were spaced around the coast the four hour cycles would overlap producing continuous power. Unlike earlier proposals for massive barrages the proposed generators are free standing or moored in areas of high tidal flow but outside shipping routes. They would be less obtrusive than wind farms.

These means of generation only make financial sense in the short term if oil and gas prices are high. As they become more efficient with experience the cost benefits get closer to other means of generation but at the moment they need (and get) government assistance with finance.

IF the capital costs change I can see myself erecting a wind generator next to my house. Wouldn't you if you knew your power supplier would end up paying you instead of sending a bill? In the meantime I've changed my light bulbs to reduce my power use, insulated my loft, am replacing my 1939 conservatory with a draft-proof and leaf-proof one and next year I'll replace my central heating boiler with a more efficient modern one.

If all my neighbours do similar things our windfarm will be producing three-quarters of our power needs in a few years time.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The energy crisis can be history in a few years if we devote Manhattan Project resources to the problem. We can do this. The minds exist, the facilities exist, and the money is there to do it.

The problemo is this: If we solve the energy crisis we destroy the oil industry, just like John D.Rockefeller killed the whaling industry. And if we destroy the oil industry (and the Arab cartel) plenty of Boomer retirees are fucked, too.

 

[JagFarlane]

The energy crisis can be history in a few years if we devote Manhattan Project resources to the problem. We can do this. The minds exist, the facilities exist, and the money is there to do it.

The problemo is this: If we solve the energy crisis we destroy the oil industry, just like John D.Rockefeller killed the whaling industry. And if we destroy the oil industry (and the Arab cartel) plenty of Boomer retirees are fucked, too.

And if those same Boomer retirees cared for the other generations there would be available housing for the younger generations. Instead...people with families are going to small apartments and townhouses because they can't afford the bevy of large houses the Boomer and "Greatest" left behind...whilst those same retirees lounge in essentially starter homes that they buy for 150k, Bah.

But alternative energy has been slowly becoming quite popular. During the weekend the Discovery Channel spent a few hours showing off the new technology and how it was being developed. Spain is working hard on solar power, as is Australia. And of course, private homes and such are hard at work as well...for example, Jay Leno's garage is all powered off of solar and wind. I've seen many a street light that is powered from solar power, plus, of course, there is the yearly race in Australia of cars powered solely by human or solar power.

 

[Gizzmotick]

But alternative energy has been slowly becoming quite popular. During the weekend the Discovery Channel spent a few hours showing off the new technology and how it was being developed. Spain is working hard on solar power, as is Australia. And of course, private homes and such are hard at work as well...for example, Jay Leno's garage is all powered off of solar and wind. I've seen many a street light that is powered from solar power, plus, of course, there is the yearly race in Australia of cars powered solely by human or solar power.

And let us also not forget the big push in places like California to ban the incandescent lightbulb. When I replaced all the lightbulbs in my house with CFL's... at the same time that my power company hiked it's rates by 20%, my power bill dropped by almost half. I went from paying about $95 to paying $47ish...

Another option that people can use is to check out LED lightbulbs. They use about 1/5th the electrcity that CFL's use (on average 1 to 3 watts). The only problem is the initial cost, which is about $25-$50 per bulb. However, these bulbs will last anywhere from 7 to 25 years before needing replacing.

And that I what I see as the problem behind most alternative energy sources. They may not cost a damn thing to operate, and may even make you money through savings or selling back to the power company... but the initial cost of purchase and installation is too high of a hurdle for most people.

Personally, I would be happy to see various configuarations of windmills on top of business and homes.

 

[JagFarlane]

And let us also not forget the big push in places like California to ban the incandescent lightbulb. When I replaced all the lightbulbs in my house with CFL's... at the same time that my power company hiked it's rates by 20%, my power bill dropped by almost half. I went from paying about $95 to paying $47ish...

Another option that people can use is to check out LED lightbulbs. They use about 1/5th the electrcity that CFL's use (on average 1 to 3 watts). The only problem is the initial cost, which is about $25-$50 per bulb. However, these bulbs will last anywhere from 7 to 25 years before needing replacing.

And that I what I see as the problem behind most alternative energy sources. They may not cost a damn thing to operate, and may even make you money through savings or selling back to the power company... but the initial cost of purchase and installation is too high of a hurdle for most people.

Personally, I would be happy to see various configuarations of windmills on top of business and homes.

Actually if you really want to install alternative energy sources...try a search involving your state. There are states that offer reimbursement for the high costs or other ways to assist you for choosing to use that alternative energy.

 

[Weird Harold]

Personally, I would be happy to see various configuarations of windmills on top of business and homes.

You may be seeing some that you dont' recognise.

Some powered ventilators like this:

http://images.doityourself.com/stry/5033.jpg

... have small generators attached to charge battery powered ventilation fans that are triggered by thermal sensors.

Not an earth shattering use of wind power, but it does save the twenty or thirty cents those thermal switched fans would cost to run off the grid.

The basic concept of adapting that basic kind of omnidirectional turbine for generating wind power unobtrusively is workable though. You just need a lot of them and they need to have better bearings and vane contours to be efficient.

 

[S-Des]

Actually if you really want to install alternative energy sources...try a search involving your state. There are states that offer reimbursement for the high costs or other ways to assist you for choosing to use that alternative energy.

I looked into it for solar about 5 years ago and the price was just too much for my station in life. When they find a way to get it down a bit (you know, that Capitalism thing Roxanne is always cheerleading about ), I'll be all over it. Even if it's nothing more than a break even, I'd be happy to do it just because we all need to eventually (unless they perfect clean/cheap/renewable energy on a mass scale).

 

[amicus]

"Left Wing Environmentalists fight Synthetic Fuel!"

~~~

Well, the title of the thread I started certainly seems to be accurate, does it not?

And comes as no surprise.

Which is why I chose the title.

Ain't I smart?

However....

If you read the supplied links or did your own 'objective' research, you will have read (and apparently ignored), that the CO2 produced by the process of making synthetic oil will be sold to oil companies willing to buy for use to increase the yield of oil wells.

Secondly, the costs of carbon sequestration imposed by government, have been accounted for in the projections for cost of production.

But all our squeaky clean environmentalists cue up the old 8 tracks and play the solar and wind alternatives; how quaint is that?

I suspected all along that you idiots will push your failed philosophy until the lights go out and you are pedaling generators to power your high tech laptops.

Then you will find a way to blame Capitalism.

Par for the course.

What else is new?

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus - In the UK you can already buy clockwork motors to power your laptop.

Useful in power cuts.

Og

 

[impressive]

"Left Wing Environmentalists fight Synthetic Fuel!"

~~~

Well, the title of the thread I started certainly seems to be accurate, does it not?

And comes as no surprise.

Which is why I chose the title.

Ain't I smart?

However....

If you read the supplied links or did your own 'objective' research, you will have read (and apparently ignored), that the CO2 produced by the process of making synthetic oil will be sold to oil companies willing to buy for use to increase the yield of oil wells.

Secondly, the costs of carbon sequestration imposed by government, have been accounted for in the projections for cost of production.

But all our squeaky clean environmentalists cue up the old 8 tracks and play the solar and wind alternatives; how quaint is that?

I suspected all along that you idiots will push your failed philosophy until the lights go out and you are pedaling generators to power your high tech laptops.

Then you will find a way to blame Capitalism.

Par for the course.

What else is new?

Amicus...

If you don't produce the CO2, you don't have to sequester it. If you don't rape the land, you don't have to restore it. Of course, that eliminates the sequestration and restoration industries -- and we can't have that because some rich old fart might be out of a fat government contract.

If those rich old farts could make as much money on the "quaint" solar & wind alternatives, you can bet your crusty, cynical ass they'd be on 'em like flies on a steaming pile of dog shit.

And speaking of pedaling, I'd happily do so to cut my fossil fuel consumption. I think it's a fine idea. We could all benefit from the exercise, too. Win-Win. Oh, but the rich old farts don't profit from that.

 

[amicus]

Amicus - In the UK you can already buy clockwork motors to power your laptop.

Useful in power cuts.

Og

~~~

Get used to the power cuts and brown-outs, Ogg, they may well become a daily event along with rationing electricity to major industries and transportation hubs.

Most of the denizens of despair on this forum can do at least enough Math, to figure out that the entire combination of Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal and what ever other tidy environmentally friendly source you can think of, can create perhaps fifteen percent of daily electricity consumption.

That is tied to conservation efforts that most will not attempt unless forced.

The point of reality you folks continually ignore is that modern industrialized societies consume huge quantities of electricity to maintain a standard of living that most people aspire to, here, there and elsewhere, (being India and China).

Roxanne blissfully dreams of a total world population of a half to one billion people, and in that aspect, joins the Utopian dreamers of the left, envisioning a world small enough that you folks can manage and control.

The heart and soul (old song) of your philosophy, never sung or even hummed, is a hostility and an aversion to the Industrial Revolution. Ayn Rand tagged you folks a half century ago, "The Anti Industrial Revolution", I would add to that, "The anti-intellectual Revolution", as it was the mind of man that created the luxuries you now enjoy and take for granted, via the industrial revolution.

Just as religion, as a motive factor, has been moved to a small corner of the stage, so too will the watered down versions of socialism you folks advocate, be relegated to a bystanding, observer of human affairs.

I write and speak these words with certainty and absolutism, as I know and understand the nature of man as an individual, and I know that the individual spirit will withstand and overcome the thrust of the collective to eliminate freedom and liberty.

When the people in general finally wake up to what you are trying to do to them, and they will; you better run like hell.

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

As usual, Amicus, you are attacking things I didn't say.

If I can generate my own power and other people do the same then our local dependence on fossil fuels can be reduced. The local electricity grid is currently being upgraded to cope with the input of 400 wind turbines at the mouth of the Thames Estuary.

Power outages due to grid failure are very few in the UK because the National Grid is robust. Local outages are usually due to external forces such as vehicles crashing into power lines or a fire that spread to an electricity sub-station.

We will always need a diversity of power sources and nuclear power is part of that. The strong National Grid is needed to transfer power from the variety of sources to the consumers. We call it "National" but it is actually international. We in the UK swap power with France because we have different times for peak loads. That is good for us and them.

At present most power generation in the UK is powered by natural gas from the North Sea. As that runs out we will be importing natural gas from the Middle East. We still have some coal fired stations and are planning to build new ones. We are planning to build new nuclear stations. That doesn't stop us building wind, water and tide generating systems.

We in the UK will continue to have a robust power generating and distribution system - as we have had since the 1930s. Even Hitler's bombs couldn't destroy the National Grid.

Og

 

[JagFarlane]

"Left Wing Environmentalists fight Synthetic Fuel!"


But all our squeaky clean environmentalists cue up the old 8 tracks and play the solar and wind alternatives; how quaint is that?

I suspected all along that you idiots will push your failed philosophy until the lights go out and you are pedaling generators to power your high tech laptops.


Amicus...

-chuckles softly- Ya know there is a balance of enviromentalism and no fault should be given to one whom desires to discuss viable solar and wind alternatives. For failure to even contemplate that we were discussing creating our own power to take some demand off, you should be ashamed. As you sit here and rant on as a high and mighty type of personality, scorning those whom talk of change, look into change, and attempt change.

One of the alternatives you have often gone on is about nuclear power. I wonder how much you really know of it. It will take some time to build civilian plants...and of course heavily borrowing upon technology of other countries to design a more modern plant. Then of course there is the actual construction and the building of the plants...however...at least there is one thing that America does have the advantage over in building more nuclear power plants. Skilled labor to operate the plants...

 

[amicus]

Dear Impressive...

Not to single you out individually, but your expressed jealousy, envy, hatred, however you name it, of those, "rich old farts", set me to thinking.

I am going to include you, loosely, under the banner of 'intellectual', as I think that fairly describes most on this enlightened forum of Author's and Critics.

I posted a thread concerning, 'intellectuals' a little less than a year ago, if memory serves, answering the question as to why artists, musicians, writers, poets, the Hollywood crowd. intellectuals, if you will, are so opposed to Capitalism, the free market and individual human freedom per se.

I referenced a book by a noted economist, as I recall and to not claim credit for this observation; I also probably lifted a few lines from Ayn Rand, as I am wont to do, to support a viewpoint.

There were no intellectuals among early humans. Leadership was by brute force and brawn, early on and did not change much through the 'hunter/gatherer stage in man's evolution, and not many as man settled and became an agricultural creature.

The theory is that those who lived by the product of their minds and not their backs, were most likely priests and shamans who were supported by the rest of the tribe or settlement.

Aside from the young girls (and boys) that serviced the priests, a few bright boys went into service as protectors and eventually scribes and appointment makers for the high and might priest.

Therein is the origin of the 'intellectual', those individuals who put food on the table by exchanging a 'mental' service rather than a 'physical', one, if you follow my thought.

There was quite a conflict when the 'leadership' of the tribe found conflict with the 'priests' of the tribe, conflict in several ways. Those not born to purvey religion or of royal blood, but still a part of the scene, 'the intellectuals', had to choose a master to serve, King or Church.(to simplify and predict)

With the wealth the Kings and Priests confiscated from the common people, they could afford to hire a musician, perhaps, for outside the bedroom window, maybe even an artist to decorate a wall or two, more examples of 'intellectuals' who survived by serving a master.

You can fast forward, with variations on a theme, of course, through Persia and the Glory of Rome, hustle on through the dark ages and into the Royalty of Europe, as the intellectual community expanded and retracted according to the ability of the masters to afford their services.

With the advent of Mercantilism, the intellectuals were faced with a difficult decision. Leave the glory of the Court or the Church for the Churlish Trader and his fat wife, (old fart that he was)? Well, not really a choice, the Businessman, the Merchant, had all the money and the sparkling gems.(until confiscated by the King or the Pope)

Thus began that which continues today, the disenfranchised intellectual, prostituting himself for money and hating every filthy gold piece.

Intellectuals, artists, musicians, writers, Bohemians in general have always bitten the hands that fed them and cursed their lot in life.

With the immense ego required to stand above the rest, as intellectuals always have, it is most degrading to have to bow to the filthy rich capitalist that puts the Chardonnay on your table.

The Utopian dream of these misaffected literati, is that the good people of the world will elevate them to their proper status in society and reward them with riches beyond their wildest dreams.

The system they created to fulfill that wish; is called Socialism.

How ya like them apples, Imp?

chuckles....

Amicus....

 

[JagFarlane]

Oh and for information on rebates/grants offered for solar power you can go here:

http://www.dsireusa.org/