Wednesday 12 November 2014

The Genesis Flood and Geology

About the Earth
If you drew a straight line from the surface of the earth to its center, that line would be a little over 3,950 miles long. The crust of the earth is from the surface to 20 to 25 miles down. Immediately below the crust is what is called the mantle. The mantle is l,800 miles thick. It is then a little over 2,100 miles from the bottom of the mantel to the centermost point in the earth. That part of the earth is known as the core. Neither scientists nor any other men know anything for certain about the mantel and the core. There are many ideas and theories, but nothing has been learned by direct study, which is the only legitimate way that science can know, or honestly claim to know, anything for sure. Seismographs and other velocity-measuring equipment have given the basis for inferring certain things, which may or may not be correct; but nothing is known.
The Mantel and the Core of the Earth
The oldest accepted idea is that the core is an inferno of melted iron and nickel. A small bit more is known about the mantel, though not much. From what is known, the mantel is thought to be very dense, comprised primarily of silicates, rich in metals, and very vaguely described. Some earthquakes originate in the mantel. The magnetic field of the earth, it is believed, is caused by some unknown phenomena in the core. The deeper you go in the interior of the earth, the denser the material gets and the higher the temperatures rise, some think to as high as 2500 degrees Centigrade, squared!
Why are True North and Magnetic North Different?
There are Bible believing scientists who think that the mantel slipped on the core during the Genesis Flood. Definitive statements are impossible, however, due to the uncertain nature of information and understanding of the mantel.
The Earth's Crust
Virtually all of the geological activity and changes that we can observe, and that have taken place in the history of the earth, have occurred in the crust.
Geological Evidences of the Great Flood
It would be quite impossible and impractical for us to attempt a thorough, much less exhaustive, examination of the geological evidences of great changes and then relate them to the Flood. No such thing is necessary, however, to make the points we want to make. Nothing in geology contradicts the Biblical account. And then, nothing but the Genesis Flood can really sensibly account for these phenomena. As you think about these things, there is a very significant and singular point to keep in sight. If one single example clearly denies the claims of uniformitarian evolution and historic geological time, then the whole theory is based upon a faulty premise.
World Class Testimony to the Great Flood
One of the clearest evidences of the Genesis Flood happening in just the way and the short period of time that the Bible says, is the enormous vertical build up of stratified layers in the Grand Canyon. In the Grand Canyon we have very high embankments comprised of one sedimentary layer on top of another. All of these are comprised of more or less of different types of soils and rocks.
The Preposterousness of Uniformitarian Fantasy
The uniformitarian evolutionary explanation, greatly simplified, is that these were done gradually over untold millions of years as the region, being a geosyncline plane, sank beneath the sea and received a strata layer, only to be heaved up by some force. It would then sink again in another few millions of years. Another evolutionary theory is or that these strata continued to pile up in place over a geological time period, only to be exposed by the gradual cutting down of a uniform river over millions of years. There are some other similar ideas too, but you get the picture.
The Atheistic Religious Bias of Evolutionists
These arbitrary and dishonest theories can only be believed by religious atheists who are so desperate to deny the Bible that they will grasp at any alternative. If one removed the religious zeal of these Biblical antagonists, no sensible scientist would ever believe for a moment such illogical and disreputable gobbledygook.
The Obviousness of the Biblical Record
The only sensible answer is the Great Flood. From the science of hydro-selectivity we know that when a current moves into a land mass it slows. The slower it gets, the smaller the particles of sediment that are released. When it makes land it stops; the current at this point is virtually motionless and the deposited layer is nearly undisturbed. The final load of sediment is deposited and the current moves back out to sea. During the Genesis Flood the waters were gradually rising on the earth for forty consecutive days until they reached the highest point. Great currents, carrying sediment loads from all over the earth, were being driven with great force and velocity in every direction. With this magnitude of speed and violence a good portion of the sediment remained in suspension. As the currents, from all parts of the earth, came into the land region of the Grand Canyon and stopped, they deposited one layer on top of another; each one different from the other. While the difference in stratification may give the appearance of widely separated time intervals if one looks at them from that bias, it is nevertheless exactly what we would expect to see in this area as a result of the Great Flood. Whitcomb-Morris state, in The Genesis Flood, page 153, figure 6: "According to uniformist concepts, numerous changes of environment, with great regional subsidence and uplifts, must have been involved, but this would appear quite impossible. The strata simply could not have remained so nearly uniform and horizontal over such great areas and great periods of time, while undergoing such epeirogenic movements. By far the most reasonable way of accounting for them is in terms of relatively rapid deposition out of the sediment laden waters of the Flood."
Glaciation and the Flood
Another geological phenomenon which looks to the Genesis Flood for a sane answer is Glaciation. This not only includes the existing glaciers, but the legitimate evidences of those of the past. A very simplified explanation of the bases for the evolutionary and uniformitarian arguments of an ice age or ice ages over very long periods of time are what are called tillites and striations. Tillites are hardened tills. A till is sediment that has supposedly been left by a melting glacier or a layer or sheet of ice. Striations are long scratches, supposedly made by one glacier, containing rocks in its bottom surface, overriding another, separated by great periods of time.
They Became Vain in their Foolish Imaginations
This kind of an argument is almost undisciplined imagination. There are many things that can make scratches on the surface of a glacier, and there is nothing in either tillites or striations to say that they represent different time periods. There is a wild casting about in the worlds of Uniformitarianism and the Geological Ages for an answer to the Glaciation phenomena. The Genesis Flood allows for it very logically and completely.
The Rapid Birth and Death of Glaciers
The thermal blanket (i.e. the great water vapor canopy), surrounding the earth and holding in the heat and making the earth's temperatures very warm and uniform, fell as great torrents of rain during the first forty days of the Flood. When this happened, all of the heat dissipated and the earth suddenly became very cold. To help this along, great volumes of rain were falling from heaven and the sun was virtually shut out. After the rain, a fierce wind began to blow all over the earth making a chill factor of many degrees below zero. Without the thermal blanket to keep the earth's temperatures uniform, the Polar Regions suddenly became sub-zero--much colder than they are now--because there was no vapor canopy to radiate heat back to earth, and to keep it from escaping into space. The huge canyons in which the glaciers formed were made by turbidity flows as the torrential rains washed great depths of soil from the surface of the antediluvian earth. Turbidity flows are water currents loaded up with rocks, sands, soils, and debris. These turbidity flows have the ability to do tremendous amounts of geological work in very short periods of time, depending on their size and velocity.
The magnitude of them during the Flood is virtually unfathomable. In addition to this, there were violent earthquakes opening up great fissures in the rocks, and there were mountains being heaved up by tectonic activity, certainly containing cracks, seams, and fissures for rivers to run in and glaciers to form in. Many glaciers were formed in regions that rapidly became too warm to sustain them once the vapor canopy was built back up to a significant extent and the wind stopped. Almost immediately the atmosphere began to heat up again and the glaciers began to melt. A famous example would be the Merced River Canyon in the high country of Yosemite National Park in California. The so called tillites were the result of different currents flowing into these glacier canyons and being frozen, along with the soils and rock being carried as sediment. No doubt there was overriding and scratching as these various sheets of ice kept building on top of one another for forty days. When the glaciers started to melt, the hard tills were left as the sediment that was contained in that current. In places like Yosemite, the glaciers did not last too long because the region is not that cold. There are evidences of movement, polishing and scratching of ice and boulders, and there are many glacial tills. This again is what one would normally expect in a situation where a universal flood built up over forty days, depositing one current that froze into ice on top of another. Obviously there was movement going on in these areas.
The Canyon Came First and Then the Glacier
Clearly the glaciers did not make these canyons. The water flowed into the canyons that were made by turbidity flows, earthquakes, or heaving up of mountains, or else they were already there when the Flood came, though probably not in too many cases. The striations are the interaction between different currents forming different layers of ice, each carrying its own kind of sediment.
The Universal Flood Alone Accounts for Glaciation
Nothing but the rapid dissipation of the earth's heat into a bitterly cold condition, the increasing waters of the flood, the different currents from different parts of the earth, and the rapid warming again when the great wind stopped and the canopy was to some extent evaporated back up by the great wind, can sensibly explain the glaciers. In that regard it must be stated that many of the areas where scientists had thought in the past that they had seen clear evidence of glacier polishing--principally in what are now regions of African, South American, and tropical regions, thus causing them to conclude a world wide ice age, are now thought to have been caused by great turbidity flows and not glaciers at all.
Coal Deposits and the Flood
The great coal deposits could only sensibly have been formed by the Genesis Flood. These are thick layers of rich vegetation deposited upon one another. This shows that the vegetation was much more luxuriant before the Flood, and that the Flood, along with layers of sediment, flowed this vegetation into the areas where it was trapped and buried. Some places there are many layers of coal, separated by layers of sediment. This is what one would naturally expect to find as a result of the Flood. As the waters rose higher different currents with different loads of vegetation and sediment layered one on top of another.
Diamonds Formed in Twenty-Four Hours by Heat and Hydraulic Pressure
Years ago Uniformitarians declared that it took millions of years for carbons to form, and particularly diamonds. This self-serving pronouncement was used for a long time to frustrate those who would believe in the Flood. But in recent years it has become common knowledge that carbons can form, even diamonds, virtually over night. Commercially produced diamonds for drill bits and similar applications, can be made in 24 hours with heat and hydraulic pressure. So, given the amount of heat and hydraulic pressure that was being built up in the earth's crust during the Flood, the great coal and diamond beds could have formed in much less than 150 days.
The Greatly Increased Size of the Oceans and the Genesis Flood
Only the Great Flood could have raised the level of the ocean from 2000 to 4000 feet. This is what the geologic testimony shows rather clearly in some instances. Far out from the present shore lines, and down to depths of 4000 feet, there are river canyons where rivers once ran. Many of these subterranean rivers show evidences of having been formed by huge turbidity flows when the first waters of the Great Flood began to reach the ancient sea level.
Continental Shelves
And then there are the continental shelves, which demand an acceptance of the fact of a much lower sea level before the Flood. These mark the original boundary between the continental blocks and the original shore line of the oceans. Some of these shelves are hundreds of miles out to sea at present, with the average distance being around fifty miles.
Seamounts
A quote from Whitcomb-Morris in The Genesis Flood, page 124, under the heading, "More Water in the Present Oceans," also serves to establish the point: "In past decades have been discovered great numbers of seamounts which are nothing but drowned islands out in the middle of the ocean. These are flat-topped, and therefore non-volcanic in formation, and are now in many cases more than 1000 fathoms below the surface. Yet they give abundant evidence of having once been above the surface (A fathom is six feet)."
The Geological Time Column Hoax
The method that uniformitarian evolutionists and historic geologists use for their dating schemes is illogical, contrived, dishonest, and subjective. It is tied entirely onto its own tail. It is circular reasoning in its most obvious form. It argues that the age of the rocks and the strata can be determined by the fossils, and that the age of the fossils can be determined by the age of the rocks in which they occur. But there are numerous places throughout the world, where the rock strata are out of order by the evolutionist's criteria. If this where allowed to stand--as of course it does in fact--the evolutionary theory would have to be abandoned as being fatally flawed. But this theory, which has been proven fatally flawed some 7000 times since 1830 when it got started, shows amazing resiliency. Nowhere is this more evident than when they try to rationalize away the obvious geological contradictions that are found in many strata.
The Lewis Overthrust Fiasco
One of the famous examples is the so-called Lewis Overthrust in Glacier Park, Montana. The Lewis Overthrust, a block of rock that is supposed to have been thrust up and out over the shale deposit beneath it, is about 35 miles wide and 6 miles thick. According to uniformitarian evolutionists and their geologists this massive formation has ridden over the shale deposit below it for a distance of about 40 miles. The problem for evolutionists is very simple. This enormous mass of rock is so-called Pre-Cambrian limestone that according to them, is supposed to be about 500,000,000 years older than the rock on which it rests, which is a very thin layer of so-called Cretaceous shale. In an effort to avoid the obvious negating of their arbitrary dating theories, they have come up with this idea. But anyone with dull normal intelligence and no education at all could stand and look at this phenomenon and see the utter ridiculousness of it. How could eight hundred thousand billion tons of rock slide over a thin layer of soft shale for great distances without entirely obliterating the shale layer?
Peer Condemnation
According to Hubert and Rubey, in an article entitled "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting," published in the Bulletin of Geological Society of America, Vol. 70, Feb. 1959, pp. 126, "the condition assumed, the pushing of a thrust block, whose length is of the order of 30 km. or more, along a horizontal surface, appears to be a mechanical impossibility." Dr. Walter Lammerts made a survey of the area in the early l980's. His conclusion was: "At the actual contact line very thin layers of shale were present. This seems to clearly indicate that just before the Altyn limestone was deposited and after the tilting of the Cretaceous beds, a thin wafer-like 1/8th to 1/16th inch layer of shale was deposited...Likewise careful study of these intercalations showed not the slightest evidence of abrasive activity such as one would expect to find if these were shoved forward in between layers of shale as the Overthrust theory demands." He goes on to echo Hubert and Ruby by saying that the over thrusting of the limestones "...appears to be a mechanical impossibility."
Matterhorn and MythenPeak Problems
In other cases, these same evolutionists have the massive Swiss Matterhorn being moved upward and sideways for more than forty miles, in order to explain why it is out of place in the geological time column. But that is only a small thing when compared to the Mythen Peak of the Alps, which has a number of strata which are all out of order. Eocene is on the bottom, then Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. This is a contradiction of the geological time column's fanciful dating of these rock formations. In order to try to work their way out of this embarrassing denial of their schemes, historic geologists have arbitrarily moved this mountain, in tact, thousands of miles from Africa into Switzerland! Well, now! Certainly the Genesis Flood did enormous geological work; but the movement of a whole mountain thousands of miles and set it down in perfect conform-ability with, and cemented to, the strata below it with no valid indication of its ever having moved? Hah! Divine intervention could account for such a thing, but certainly nothing that is reportedly held by evolutionists and historic geologists advances a valid answer.
When Liars Fall Out Among Themselves
These and many others, such as the Heart Mountain thrust plain, have caused the highly regarded evolutionist J. A. Jeltzky, in an article entitled "Paleontology: Basis of Practical Geochronology," published in Volume 40, April 1956, by the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, to admit: "The more amply proved and almost unanimously recognized impossibility of establishing any practically and useful broadly regional or world-wide geologic time scale of Pre-Cambrian time supplies conclusive proof that these phenomena are devoid of any general recognizable geologic time significance." What did Dr. Jeltzky say? "The geological strata and other evidences do not mean a thing when it comes to determining how they got there and how long they have been there. It is impossible to make anything from the geological record that will establish times and ages that have any practical meaning whatsoever. This has been amply proved and has gained wide recognition.
This simply cannot be ignored any longer." One of the most respected uniformitarian geologists of his day, Dr. Edmund M. Spieker, Professor of Geology at Ohio State University, confessed the failure of the geological record to support the geological ages theory when he wrote, in an article called "Mountain-Building Chronology and Nature of Geologic Time-Scale," published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Volume 40 in l956: "Does our time scale then partake of natural law? No...I wonder how many of us realize that the time scale was frozen in essentially its present form by 1840...? How much world geology was known in 1840? A bit of Western Europe, none too well and a lesser fringe of North America? All of Asia, Africa, South America, and most of North America was virtually unknown. How dared the pioneers to assume that their time scale would fit the rocks in these vast areas, by far most of the world. And in many parts of the world, notably India and South America, it does not fit. But even there it is applied. The followers of the founding fathers went forth across the earth in Procrustean fashion and made it fit the sections they found, even in places where the actual evidences literally proclaimed denial. So flexible and accommodating are the 'Facts' of geology." Of course Dr. Spieker was not trying to do Creationist any favor and he would not agree with our views, but the confessions and admissions that he made are startling:
1. The geological evidences mean nothing in terms of a time scale.
2. This time scale was developed by Lyell and his followers who made it up arbitrarily without broad knowledge or significant evidence.
3. Since then men have blindly followed these ideas, which practice must be religion since it certainly does not follow natural law.
4. What historic geologists have come up with is not science at all but a willful bending of the evidence, even in areas where anyone can see that it does not fit, to make it conform to a preconceived formula that they are determined to protect at all costs.
5. And so the witness of the geological evidence, that many have thought clearly speaks to them of evolution, really says nothing to them at all because they are blinded by the brainwashing and indoctrinating they have had into their religious beliefs and have been fully committed, even against plain evidence to the contrary, that their beliefs are right. "How dare they do this in the name of science?" the good doctor chides. "My, my," he mocks, "how easy it is to bend our theories and how easily they accommodate to every new and imaginary hunch. Such," he says, in scathing tones, literally dripping with sarcasm, "are the 'facts' of geology."
In conclusion to this article we quote again from Whitcomb-Morris, on whom we have relied often, though not exclusively, for much of technical information: "In the light of such frequent flagrant contradictions to the established geologic time sequences, in addition to the arbitrary methods and circular reasoning by which the scale itself has been established, and also in addition to the innumerable evidences of catastrophe, rather than uniformity, as the basic principle in the deposition and modification of the geologic strata, the writers feel warranted in contending that the data of geology do not provide valid evidence against the historicity of the universal Deluge as recorded in the book of Genesis.
It is thus legitimate to attempt a new interpretation of these data which will be in harmony with the Biblical account of the Creation and the Flood." While it is not my intent to offer any apology or any new theories, I quote these things to show that, for scientists in the field, creationists and otherwise, the evidence of the geological phenomena in the earth today, not only does not deny, but supports the Genesis account of the Flood. And in any case it does not support and it does deny the historic geological-ages theory and uniformitarian evolution. For the honest seeker these are matters of the witness of nature to the truths revealed to us by the Holy Scriptures.
I have 29 books on most of the New Testament and all of Genesis published on amazon.com Kindle page. This text can be read on Mac, PC, iPhone, iPad, blackberry, all Kindle devices, and a few others. Covers, Titles, and a short piece about the book can be viewed prior to purchase. All information and needed software is available at the amazon site. To access, go to amazon.com, pull down "Kindle page" with the drop down arrow in the left hand text box and put my name, Earl Cripe, in the right hand text box.
Earl Cripe, Ph.D


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1857350

Wednesday 3 September 2014

Cataclysmic Flood - The Flood of the Bible

The Flood of the Bible is a great story to tell your kids one day, but are we just telling myths to our children? Well, the flood of the bible is not actually a myth and can be proven within the very earth we walk on.
Since there are billions of fossils, finding one has become widespread. Since it is so common, it tells so much of our history of a massive flood, a cataclysmic flood, that put these objects in places where they normally would not exist.
The earths surface of sedimentary rock created a mold of anything that existed years ago. These living things made formations which can be found in unusual places. For example, a tree that is facing upside down or a fossilized oyster on top of a mountain all tell us that massive amounts of water, or a flood has redeposited these objects in these unusual places.
There is 70% of sedimentary rock and the remaining is volcanic igneous and metamorphic rock. Scientists have found many of the fossils to be actual trees that were buried in different angles in the stone. The studies of scientists show that this was done by a flood or the result of a marine cataclysm. This is not just in localized places on the earth but in every part of the earth.
The fossils found include shellfish, marine invertebrates, algae and plants. There are insects, land vertebrates and dinosaur bones as well. One may also recall a time when you have gone hiking or camping and found fossils of marine life on top of a mountain. These fossils are remnants of what many call, The Great Flood or the Flood of the Bible.
There is a lot to learn about the earth's surface and the examples of life on the earth during the time of Noah. Even though the Ark itself has not been found as of yet, the fossils tell a pretty compelling story of the Flood of the Bible.
Looking to find great free resources on The Biblical Flood [http://www.catastrophicflood.com], then visit Global Cataclysm [http://www.catastrophicflood.com] to find more.


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3303703

Wednesday 25 June 2014

Noah's Flood: Local or Worldwide?

There is evidence all over the biblical narrative of the flood story to indicate that the flood was worldwide and not local. First of all Genesis 6:5 says that the wickedness of man was great in the earth not in the land of Egypt, or in the plains of Ur, but in the earth. This phrase is repeated many times during the story and not once does it imply a local flood. In addition to this common sense tells us that the flood story had to be worldwide and not local. Noah took 120 years to build the ark. If the flood was to be local, why didn't he just move to another part of the earth? When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah he sent Lot and his family out of the city because the destruction was local. Would he have done the same with Noah if the circumstances were alike? Of course, but He didn't because the flood was not local, it was worldwide. There was nowhere to run to escape the flood; therefore, the only escape would be a boat so massive it would take 120 years to prepare.
I believe it is important for Christians to believe in a literal worldwide flood. The reason why is because the Bible gives no indication of a local flood. Those who hold to the belief of a local flood do so because it conflicts with other previously established non-biblical beliefs. Any Christian who is ready to take God at His word will have no problem accepting the historical validity and accuracy recorded in the book of Genesis. From chapter 6 to chapter 9 of Genesis the word "earth" is used over and over again to emphasize the destruction of an entire planet and not just a small portion of it. One can argue and say that the term earth really just means a piece of land, and that the idea of all the earth doesn't in the Hebrew literally mean all the earth but a portion of it, but in order to support those conclusions one must build a case outside the scriptures and not within. In such an instance sola scriptura is done away with and the Bible becomes a book subject to the interpretations of biased secular science. However, the Bible can only be interpreted by comparing scripture with scripture. Though the understanding of ancient language, culture, and context are essential to a proper interpretation of the biblical text the use of modern ideas, theories, and philosophies should never be injected into the Bible. To do so would mean applying meanings to the text that are neither intended nor implied. As Christians we should always be willing to take God at His word.


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/7484764

Friday 6 December 2013

Wise Investments in Alternative Energy


Business hunches are catching on the unfolding attraction of profits offered by alternative energy investments. Their clue comes from highly informed analysis showing that "green" energy production is all systems go to become a multi-billion business by 2013.
The alternative energy frontier has recently expanded its vast horizons. The newly crafted wind turbine technologies, for example, have given us fresh glimpses of how cost-effective wind-powered energy can become. They are gaining support due largely to their superior long-term viability in comparison with what traditional energy technologies offer. With initial successes, industry players are expected to jump on the bandwagon, further fueling possibilities of increased investments in wind technology research and production.
Another example is photovoltaic or solar cell alternative energy technology. This technology has long been in use to energize pocket calculators, personal asset lights, US Coast Guard buoys and other related implements. Now its uses have been increasing, like gracing housing roofs, commercial and other industrial complexes. While the cost of the technology continues to drop, its efficiency ratio continues to rise. The efficiency ratio of energy conversion using silicon cells has risen from only 4 per cent in 1982 to more than 20 per cent in recent years with application of the latest technologies. Moreover, photovoltaic cells do not emit pollutants because they merely produce electrical power. The downside of PV cells is that they are currently not as cost-efficient when compared to the commercial electric-generating facilities. Their production capability at a scale remains constrained due to their space requirements. But with increasing availability of areas where PV cells can be placed in adequate number, the PV technology has become an attractive business proposition.
Alternative energy investment experts also believe that alternative sources of energy from tidal currents or movements as well as temperature differentials offer new and huge business potentials. France continues to lead in developing hydro power technology research and production. The United States and Scotland, among other countries, are also deep in their own researches on hydro power generation. There had been initial difficulties in this field, owing in part to the decline of salt water metals, proliferation of barnacles and turbulent storms, among other things, which impeded stable energy generation. But current breakthroughs have addressed these concerns such as by using alternative and better industrial materials. It also helps that people are having a better understanding on ocean currents and ocean waves. Many things are working for ocean-powered energy, not the least of which being its reliability and renewability.
Elsewhere, investments in hydro-electric technology have increased in the last 20 years. Hydro-electric power is environmentally clean. The problem with dams that make use of water and gravity to run turbines and generate electricity is their limited availability. Not many dams can be viably constructed in relation to total demand for energy. The giant dams have also been blamed for despoiling the marine eco-system. Efforts to address these concerns require big and sometimes prohibitive expenses such that focus has turned to low-impact "run-of-the-river" hydro-power-generating facilities. While they remain potent as sources of electric power, these relatively smaller facilities are not ecological hazards.
Green energy is the way to go. Alternative sources of energy are environmentally safe even as they respond to our growing need for power. This sunrise industry beckons. We would be well-advised to go with the current and invest in it.
Hermilando Aberia is an expert in social development work with at least 22 years of professional experience as either consultant or key staff member of health, community development, education and local governance projects. He has a master's degree in development management from the Asian Institute of Management. Contact Information: B21 L59 Kassel Kristina Heights, Tacloban City, Philippines. Mobile: (+63) 9058664106; Website: http://www.freewebs.com/iaberia


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1371652

Wednesday 25 September 2013

Alternative Energy Investments - Japan's emerging Role


What's Japan's role in alternative energy investment? Japan is among several countries that are addressing energy needs by making advances in water treatment, electricity storage and in solar power. Currently, SPI Holdings, Inc., has $3 billion in private equity investments meant to access growth in Asian companies with a venture capital fund, and will be among the new alternative energy funds expected to appear.
Specifically, global investors are expected to come up with 30 billion yen, or $330 million, from sovereign wealth funds like Masdar Clean Tech Fund of Abu Dhabi and Temasek Holdings Pte. Expected internal rate of return on investment is expected to be 25 to 30%.
Clean technologies are increasingly in the public eye because President Barack Obama and Japan's Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama are focusing on projects that will deliver electricity to consumers from wind power and solar plants, both renewable energy sources, without disruption to the current system; the current system largely depends on fossil fuel sources like coal for its electricity generation needs.
This has boded well for the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index, which has gone up about 30% in the last year, more than benchmark equities indices' gain in both Japan and the United States. (It should also be noted, however, that some investors are taking losses, resulting in what seems to be at least a temporary financial crisis. In 2009, for example, clean energy investment fell 6.5% versus 2008.)
This interest in renewable energy technology is not new, but its actual inception, including sustainable, renewable, clean or "green" energy sources, is indeed new and has been exciting to watch, for many. Japan's own focus on developing renewable sources like wind power has made it a perfect partner to the US in developing these technologies. managing director of the Institute of Energy Economics Japan, Kensuke Kanekiyo, has said that, "Japan is also getting this trend off the ground and money follows." Specifically, alternative energy funds like the one being developed by SBI prevent new opportunities for investors.
A year ago, SBI joined with a unit of Mubadala Development Co., a sovereign fund of Abu Dhabi, meant to speed the development of alternative energy so that a reduced dependence on oil as possible. Now, SBI's plan for the 30 billion yen fund is waiting for investors' commitment, with two companies so far involved.
Takashi Nakagawa, director of Tokyo-based SBI, says that the plan is to look at water management, light emitting diodes, solar and batteries. Clean technology is paramount and one of the "three pillars" of SBI's investment policy, including the other two "pillars," bio-science and information technology.
One of the companies SBI has chosen for the alternative energy pilot fund has found a way to produce silicon solar cells that are shaped like spheres, do not require as much material as standard solar cells, and yet have more power output. Another of the companies SBI has chosen for the pilot fund has developed a lithium rechargeable battery that is both safer and lighter than current models.
One of the major developments in Japan's use of renewable energy is that its solar panel sales achieved record levels in 2009 as the government used incentive programs so that citizens would switch to renewable power, which meant an increase in local demand and helped to offset the negative aspects of a decline in exports. Sales in solar panels increased 21%.
Indeed, perhaps the current high price of fossil fuels like oil is not an entirely negative thing, given that it spurs the growth of these technologies. Of this, the Institute's Kanekiyo says, "There are plenty of untapped technologies that can be developed when oil is priced at the current level."
What might this mean for the development of alternative energies in the US, besides the development of alternative energy funds?
Although it is not quite known what the far-reaching benefits of this will be yet, in October of 2009, President Obama unveiled a plan to invest $3.4 billion in government grants so that a smart grid could be developed and installed; this "smart grid" would make electricity delivery more reliable and would also help deliver power from "green energy" sources like solar panels and wind turbines. In November of 2009, the US Department of Energy also announced $620 million in funding for these smart grid projects.
The development of smart grid technologies and renewable "green" energy technologies, such as is being done in Japan and the US, bode well, of course, for our economies, in that oil prices are skyrocketing and making this type of energy much more expensive to acquire; additionally, development of these types of "green energies" will also garner independence, in that our countries will not be able to generate our own energy from these renewable technologies. Exciting for any investor who wants to sink his or her money into alternative energy funds that support not only financial success, but national independence from fossil fuel imports and environmental benefits, too.
For more information on the potentials and pitfalls of alternative energy funds [http://www.alternativeenergyreport.net], visit us at [http://www.alternativeenergyreport.net].


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3787118

Saturday 1 June 2013

Biofuel Technology - The Cost of Alternative Energy


Certainly consumers are concerned with escalating fuel prices as well as what fossil fuels are doing to the environment. The concern has led many consumers to find out more about alternative energy sources in the way of solar power, wind power and biofuel technology. However, are these technologies new? Certainly not - although now that energy is such a concern the technologies relative to biofuels, wind and solar can no longer be put on the back shelf. That said, this technology is a very old alternative energy solution. The costs of biofuel technology have to be looked at before solutions can be found.
The creation of a biofuel is not some sort of complex science. In order to create a biofuel the following needs to occur. First you will need to take some form of grain or vegetable and thoroughly grind it up. The grain or vegetable is then mixed with water. The grain or vegetable and water is then cooked for a very short length of time. During this short period of cooking time an enzyme is added to the mixture in order that the starch may be subsequently convert to sugar. The cooking process just described is referred to as Hydrolysis.
You next add some yeast. The yeast is necessary in order that the mixture can ferment. The fermentation of the mixture results in the production of Ethanol. A distillation process is applied in order to separate the Ethanol from the other ingredients. You may not be aware of it, but currently with the concern regarding diminishing fossil fuels and the threat they present to the environment there are a fair amount of websites showing various ways to manufacture the product of Ethanol at home. Even though the steps do not sound all that significant there is truly a great deal of time involved and a good deal of work. Further, some have mentioned it is not all that cost-effective to produce Ethanol at home.
However, on a larger scale a good deal of time and financial resources is being spent currently with respect to manufacturing methods pertinent to biofuels. In example, researchers are looking for ways to produce Ethanol by means that prove less expensive than what is incurred when using grains. This assures food sources are not used too frequently. It is not necessary for part of the population go hungry due to the fact food sources are being used over-extensively in the way of biofuel manufacture. Countries that have been manufacturing biofuels for a relatively long time now grow food products high in sugar content; one example of such a food product is sugar cane. Brazil is one country that grows a considerable amount of sugar cane. Brazil has also been producing biofuels for quite a while now.
It may be said, the majority of Ethanol used commercially is the result of manufacture using the by-product yeast. Ethanol is manufactured as well wherein gasoline is used within the production process. However, the majority of Ethanol produced is the result of using yeast. In manufacturing biofuels corn is considered in areas such as North America where its harvest is generous. However, though corn is generally used in the production of biofuels the process is pricey and the conversion into biofuel a good deal more detailed.
Greg has been writing articles for over 5 years. Please visit his latest website about renewable energy ideas at Alternative Energy Sources, with great information and thoughts surrounding Costs of Biofuel Technology.


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6041309

Friday 15 February 2013

The Latest in Alternative Energy Technology


World resources of fossil fuels are running low, and burning them causes a number of problems to the environment. There is no way to avoid these facts unless we get to replace them completely and take advantage of alternative energy technology. And there are many alternatives to using fossil fuels for our source of energy.
Solar power is one of the best options because most of our energy comes from the sun and there is a lot of energy to power the world 1000 times over. This however has it's drawbacks in areas close to the poles where the amount of sunlight can be limited in winter. Wind power too has its benefits and can be powered through windmills that generate electricity as well marine energy such as energy produced by the waves and the tides. Another exciting source of energy is the magnetic generator which is in use commercially in parts of Europe and Canada
There are other alternative energy technology options, but those mentioned above are the best ones and the only ones in circulation today that have the potential to develop into something really amazing.
Solar power is an alternative energy technology that is being used well today. For centuries it has been known that the sun can be used to produce electricity however, in the early 1900's fossil fuels were cheap and abundant and so they became very popular. We have been using fossil fuels too fast and they are running out.
There is strong evidence to suggest that we could power our whole society by harnessing the heat of the sun on certain technologies. Solar collectors are an alternative technology that is being used by many people worldwide to heat water for showering and washing. This technology has many benefits - it provides hot water in times of electricity shortage, and a cheaper option for electricity too.
It is a good idea to make use of this technology now because solar collectors will only get more expensive as electricity prices increase in the future (due to the shortages of fossil fuels). On top of this, the environmental effects of using solar power is great - instead of burning fossil fuels and causing pollution, your power will come from the sun (a resource that continually replenishes itself).
Wind power is another good alternative energy technology and has proved to be successful in the past. For years windmills were used to mill grain and pump water, and were even used as a source of electricity in continental Europe around 1890. But wind power as been seen as a potential wind source in the last decade and many scientists agree that this is one of the best ways to power the globe without electricity. There are wind farms scattered throughout the globe that are making use of alternative energy technology. The technology works like this: three blades are attached to a rotor and when the wind blows the blades spin the rotor and this allows energy to be produced - it is a rather simple concept but works well. The only problem with wind power is that for the technology to work there has to be wind and some places in the world do not have wind. However, this technology will work in places like Wales in the United Kingdom and in North Dakota and California here in the United States.
Alternative energy technology for marine energy is still being researched and developed fully, but there is some evidence to suggest that this technology works too. It will just take a bit more time until marine energy is in the mainstream, like that of solar power, wind power and the magnetic generator.
Paul Goldman, is an Australian living in Florida who got tired of sky-high electricity prices, gas prices and things that were damaging the environment (and his wallet) so he investigated ALL the options. The ones that WORKED and the others!
Visit blog:


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3869975